3 ms·

> Why does the FSF spend so much time browbeating people for saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux"? It's even worse than that, because Stallman thinks it's fin

by arp242 3y ago

> Why does the FSF spend so much time browbeating people for saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux"? It's even worse than that, because Stallman thinks it's fine to refer to it as just "GNU": The main error is that Linux is not strictly speaking part of the GNU system—whose kernel is GNU Hurd. The version with Linux, we call “GNU/Linux.” It is OK to call it “GNU” when you want to be really short, but it is better to call it “GNU/Linux” so as to give Torvalds some credit. What a generous person he is, wanting to give "some credit" for the small contributions this little upstart student from Finland did. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/incorrect-quotation.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/incorrect-quotation.html

Gigachad 3y ago
Am I missing something, or are the only GNU parts of a modern distro just some barebones terminal utilties for copying files? I'd think the kernel, desktop environment, and other components like wayland, systemd, pipewire, etc are the actual OS while gnu mv is just a user level program.
- ahartmetz 3y ago
  You are missing something. Many command-line tools that are famously less bare-bones than on other OSes / POSIX, the compiler, gettext, and libc come to mind.
- arp242 3y ago
  There's still some pretty critical components that are used by almost all Linux systems: GNU libc, gcc (+ associated stuff, like binutils, gdb, make, etc), coreutils (+ associated stuff, like bash, grep, tar, etc.), and GRUB. Even systems like Alpine and OpenBSD use some of that. And there's a bunch of stuff that's not "critical" but is fairly widely used: gettext, gawk, nano, gpg, parted, R, Emacs. I agree with your broader point that GNU is "just" one component out of many and "it should be GNU/Linux/X11/Perl/..." is an old criticism of "GNU/Linux", but the GNU components are certainly more than "terminal utilities for copying files". Stallman gives GNU too much credit, but you're giving it (far) too little. GNU does not seem to be acquiring new projects at a great rate though, and does seem to be losing influence. The goal of a functional "GNU operating system" is further away than ever because much of it is focused on creating Unix circa 1989, which is not very "functional" for most people's meaning of that term. One reason for this is that there's not much advantage to being a "GNU project" because it offers very little in material support and risks Stallman coming in and badgering you if you're doing "unethical" things such as merely recognizing the reality that non-free software exists. (GNU did have a modern desktop environment in GNOME by the way, but Stallman spent 15 years alienating the GNOME developers until they got fed up with him)

by arp242 3y ago

Gigachad 3y ago

Am I missing something, or are the only GNU parts of a modern distro just some barebones terminal utilties for copying files? I'd think the kernel, desktop environment, and other components like wayland, systemd, pipewire, etc are the actual OS while gnu mv is just a user level program.

ahartmetz 3y ago
You are missing something. Many command-line tools that are famously less bare-bones than on other OSes / POSIX, the compiler, gettext, and libc come to mind.
arp242 3y ago
There's still some pretty critical components that are used by almost all Linux systems: GNU libc, gcc (+ associated stuff, like binutils, gdb, make, etc), coreutils (+ associated stuff, like bash, grep, tar, etc.), and GRUB. Even systems like Alpine and OpenBSD use some of that. And there's a bunch of stuff that's not "critical" but is fairly widely used: gettext, gawk, nano, gpg, parted, R, Emacs. I agree with your broader point that GNU is "just" one component out of many and "it should be GNU/Linux/X11/Perl/..." is an old criticism of "GNU/Linux", but the GNU components are certainly more than "terminal utilities for copying files". Stallman gives GNU too much credit, but you're giving it (far) too little. GNU does not seem to be acquiring new projects at a great rate though, and does seem to be losing influence. The goal of a functional "GNU operating system" is further away than ever because much of it is focused on creating Unix circa 1989, which is not very "functional" for most people's meaning of that term. One reason for this is that there's not much advantage to being a "GNU project" because it offers very little in material support and risks Stallman coming in and badgering you if you're doing "unethical" things such as merely recognizing the reality that non-free software exists. (GNU did have a modern desktop environment in GNOME by the way, but Stallman spent 15 years alienating the GNOME developers until they got fed up with him)