7 ms·

> meanwhile, everyone's phone here runs gnu/linux but completely out of reach. everyone bought a computer from an advertising (google) or fashion (apple) compan

> meanwhile, everyone's phone here runs gnu/linux but completely out of reach. everyone bought a computer from an advertising (google) or fashion (apple) company that only runs in kiosk mode. Pretty sure there is no GNU component in iOS which is based on BSD. Also, Android uses only the Linux kernel, not even close to a GNU/Linux system.

jokr004 10y ago
I feel like probably half the people who insist on calling it "GNU/Linux" don't even really understand why.
- AsyncAwait 10y ago
  Same as the people who insist on calling it Linux when talking about the desktop.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    If you wouldn't mind referring to the desktop by it's more appropriate name, K/Mozilla/Apache/GNU/Linux, that would be great.
    - AsyncAwait 10y ago
      You forgot C in there :-) Anyway, this misses the point of the FSF in insisting on calling it GNU/Linux. The point of the GNU is not to name every application that runs on your system, but to say that you're running the Linux kernel AND the GNU userland to have a functional system, i.e. that GNU is the second half of a complete system, GNU/Linux. You don't need Apache to have a functional system. You do need libc etc. to have a functional system and when these are provided by GNU, I think it's fair to call it GNU/Linux.
      - xj9 10y ago
        yeah, okay. --- 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 wherever 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. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? 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.
    - mikegerwitz 10y ago
      Most don't understand the history of the GNU Operating System: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html GNU contains a lot of non-GNU-written software because, to create a fully free OS, the only portions that needed to be written were the portions that did not have free replacements.
      - xj9 10y ago
        make a distro, call it gnu/linux, problem solved.
        teddyh 10y ago
        Why not make a GNU distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#gnudist https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#gnudist All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is to communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make. As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux. To do it again now does not seem useful; it would be a lot of work, and unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over other distributions, it would serve no purpose. Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions, such as gNewSense and Ututo.
  - xj9 10y ago
    I run arch linux and nixos. I've never heard of a distribution called gnu/linux, is it new?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
    - Koshkin 10y ago
      Despite downvotes, this, admittedly sarcastic, question makes perfect sense. The name of a "distribution" is the name of the OS. It may not even be a "distribution", like Android. Nobody calls Android "Linux".
      - nattmat 10y ago
        Linux is the operating system, the distribution is only a collection of apps running on top of the operating system. Ubuntu does not handle stuff like memory allocation or scheduling.
        teddyh 10y ago
        An operating system is a different concept from a kernel. What you are describing is a kernel, not an operating system.
  - joe563323 10y ago
    Not same. People who call GNU/Linux knows atleast linux is just kernel.
jhbadger 10y ago
If you install Termux on android, you get a full Linux experience though, with bash, gcc, and even things like emacs, ruby, and python. And it's just a normal app -- not requiring root or anything.
- zdkl 10y ago
  Love termux, but wish I could have it the other way around moqtly. Boot to a terminal and "startx" if I need to. That would be a fancy terminal, granted, if it is to handle modern touchscreens but still. Would be fun
- TY 10y ago
  Never heard of Termux, thank you very much for mentioning it!
  - gcb0 10y ago
    never heard of termux either. I use ConnectBot (a very good SSH client) that can also open local terminals.
- gcb0 10y ago
  > not requiring root i would require root to have most things i do on a full linux computer. Such as running network diagnostics, using special kernel drivers and properly debugging programs. the problem is not that some app "do not require root" the problem is that every time the user does need root, they are denied! because only the advertising company has root access to their pocket (and wrist!) computers.
e12e 10y ago
But that Linux kernel is usually compiled using gcc, still? I remember there were some effort to port to first intel's compiler, then clang - but AFAIK the official stance of upstream Linux is "we use GCC, get over it"?
gcb0 10y ago
i confess i typed "gnu" mostly out of habit this time. But I still think gnu/linux makes sense as linux relies(ed) heavily on gcc. But you are right anyway. Should have said Linux only there. And yes, IOS is BSD. you are right again. But in the end, your reply is completely off-topic and misses the core issue of my comment :)

jokr004 10y ago

I feel like probably half the people who insist on calling it "GNU/Linux" don't even really understand why.

AsyncAwait 10y ago
Same as the people who insist on calling it Linux when talking about the desktop.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  If you wouldn't mind referring to the desktop by it's more appropriate name, K/Mozilla/Apache/GNU/Linux, that would be great.
  - AsyncAwait 10y ago
    You forgot C in there :-) Anyway, this misses the point of the FSF in insisting on calling it GNU/Linux. The point of the GNU is not to name every application that runs on your system, but to say that you're running the Linux kernel AND the GNU userland to have a functional system, i.e. that GNU is the second half of a complete system, GNU/Linux. You don't need Apache to have a functional system. You do need libc etc. to have a functional system and when these are provided by GNU, I think it's fair to call it GNU/Linux.
    - xj9 10y ago
      yeah, okay. --- 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 wherever 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. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? 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.
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    Most don't understand the history of the GNU Operating System: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html GNU contains a lot of non-GNU-written software because, to create a fully free OS, the only portions that needed to be written were the portions that did not have free replacements.
    - xj9 10y ago
      make a distro, call it gnu/linux, problem solved.
      - teddyh 10y ago
        Why not make a GNU distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#gnudist https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#gnudist All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is to communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make. As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux. To do it again now does not seem useful; it would be a lot of work, and unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over other distributions, it would serve no purpose. Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions, such as gNewSense and Ututo.
- xj9 10y ago
  I run arch linux and nixos. I've never heard of a distribution called gnu/linux, is it new?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
  - Koshkin 10y ago
    Despite downvotes, this, admittedly sarcastic, question makes perfect sense. The name of a "distribution" is the name of the OS. It may not even be a "distribution", like Android. Nobody calls Android "Linux".
    - nattmat 10y ago
      Linux is the operating system, the distribution is only a collection of apps running on top of the operating system. Ubuntu does not handle stuff like memory allocation or scheduling.
      - teddyh 10y ago
        An operating system is a different concept from a kernel. What you are describing is a kernel, not an operating system.
- joe563323 10y ago
  Not same. People who call GNU/Linux knows atleast linux is just kernel.

jhbadger 10y ago

If you install Termux on android, you get a full Linux experience though, with bash, gcc, and even things like emacs, ruby, and python. And it's just a normal app -- not requiring root or anything.

zdkl 10y ago
Love termux, but wish I could have it the other way around moqtly. Boot to a terminal and "startx" if I need to. That would be a fancy terminal, granted, if it is to handle modern touchscreens but still. Would be fun
TY 10y ago
Never heard of Termux, thank you very much for mentioning it!
- gcb0 10y ago
  never heard of termux either. I use ConnectBot (a very good SSH client) that can also open local terminals.
gcb0 10y ago
> not requiring root i would require root to have most things i do on a full linux computer. Such as running network diagnostics, using special kernel drivers and properly debugging programs. the problem is not that some app "do not require root" the problem is that every time the user does need root, they are denied! because only the advertising company has root access to their pocket (and wrist!) computers.

e12e 10y ago

But that Linux kernel is usually compiled using gcc, still? I remember there were some effort to port to first intel's compiler, then clang - but AFAIK the official stance of upstream Linux is "we use GCC, get over it"?

gcb0 10y ago

i confess i typed "gnu" mostly out of habit this time. But I still think gnu/linux makes sense as linux relies(ed) heavily on gcc. But you are right anyway. Should have said Linux only there. And yes, IOS is BSD. you are right again. But in the end, your reply is completely off-topic and misses the core issue of my comment :)