4 ms·

I was forced to choose "other" since my operating system (GNU) was not listed. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently ta

by richurd 15y ago

I was forced to choose "other" since my operating system (GNU) was not listed. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

deanproxy 15y ago
My car engine is a Volkswagen and the entire vehicle consists of parts made by various other companies, but do you see anyone going around saying "I have a Brembo/Volkswagen" just because Volkswagen used some Brembo parts to build the car? Look, GNU is super important and they have done amazing things for Free software. I heavily support them and the work they have done. However, I don't force people that use my Open Source software in their products to put the name of my organization at the front of their product name or label just because they use it to develop their product and neither do most other manufacturers of other products in the world. Using Linux as a generic label to represent all the Linux based Distros out there is not unreasonable just as using "Volkswagen" isn't. There is no need to cram GNU down peoples throats and force them to write and/or say "GNU/Linux" anytime they refer generically to Linux. If you feel that way, at least be consistent with everything you own and start refering to it by both the components its built from as well as the product itself.
- udp 15y ago
  I wish there was a Linux distribution with the FreeBSD userland, just to bring up on occasions like this.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    Linux Kernel with BSD userland? (https://www.mirbsd.org/ https://www.mirbsd.org/) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirOS_BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirOS_BSD) It's mostly OpenBSD. I haven't used it. I do know the BSD man pages are better (sometimes very very much better) than the Linux equivalents.
deno 15y ago
I’m using KDE/Linux.
irreverentbits 15y ago
This argument is, and has always been, ridiculous. The GNU user land is no more an operating system than the Linux kernel or the K desktop environment. It's just one component of a larger software system which most refer to by the convenient moniker of "Linux".
- mikegerwitz 15y ago
  It is disappointing to see "GNU/Linux" comments consistently harassed. Consider the history. The GNU project was conceived in 1983 to create a full free (as in freedom) operating system. This operating system combined many different projects (for example, X), in addition to creating its own components. Before Linux, it had one troubled component - the GNU Hurd, which was its kernel. Torvalds developed Linux (the kernel) in 1990 and released it under the GNU GPLv2 in 1991, which completed the GNU operating system by providing a working, stable kernel. The entire operating system was, and still is (except when GNU is not present, such as Android), GNU. The term GNU/Linux was used to give credit to both Torvalds and the GNU project. The term just as easily could have been "GNU/Linux/X" (and in fact that was used by the Yggdrasil distribution). Linux, as it was conceived, is a kernel. GNU, as it was conceived, is an operating system. There is an important distinction there. Fast forward a couple decades. Many people, in an effort to shorten the name "GNU/Linux", simply dropped the GNU portion and referred to the entire Operating System as "Linux". Also combine this with projects such as Android, which use Linux without GNU, and therefore are not GNU/Linux. Everyone has come to know any operating system that uses the Linux kernel simply by the name of "Linux". Is that correct? Well, that depends on how the term is used. "Linux distribution" is certainly correct --- if your operating system uses the Linux kernel, then yes, distributes Linux. But to consider Linux an operating system is incorrect from both a project and historical standpoint, because it is not --- it is a Linux-based operating system. But to call an entire operating system "Linux" is saying that the entire system that you are using is part of the Linux project. On the other hand, calling your operating system "GNU", as long as it uses GNU, is correct, because GNU was always developed to be an operating system - a collection of components. So given the history, why is the term "GNU/Linux" ridiculous? Why is the term "Linux" to refer to an entire operating system not ridiculous? Because that is the most popular term to refer to a Linux-based operating system? And given your statement > The GNU user land is no more an operating system than the Linux kernel or the K desktop environment. it would seem GNU is just as fitting to be used as Linux. So again, why is such a notion ridiculous?
zvrba 15y ago
> and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX GNU defaults to NOT being POSIX-compliant, which makes most of GNU software a PITA to build on platforms which default to being POSIX-compliant. Also, except for emacs, GNU is a failure. gcc we use today is an egcs fork, and the Linux kernel could have worked just as well with BSD userland.

by richurd 15y ago

deanproxy 15y ago

My car engine is a Volkswagen and the entire vehicle consists of parts made by various other companies, but do you see anyone going around saying "I have a Brembo/Volkswagen" just because Volkswagen used some Brembo parts to build the car? Look, GNU is super important and they have done amazing things for Free software. I heavily support them and the work they have done. However, I don't force people that use my Open Source software in their products to put the name of my organization at the front of their product name or label just because they use it to develop their product and neither do most other manufacturers of other products in the world. Using Linux as a generic label to represent all the Linux based Distros out there is not unreasonable just as using "Volkswagen" isn't. There is no need to cram GNU down peoples throats and force them to write and/or say "GNU/Linux" anytime they refer generically to Linux. If you feel that way, at least be consistent with everything you own and start refering to it by both the components its built from as well as the product itself.

udp 15y ago
I wish there was a Linux distribution with the FreeBSD userland, just to bring up on occasions like this.
- DanBC 15y ago
  Linux Kernel with BSD userland? (https://www.mirbsd.org/ https://www.mirbsd.org/) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirOS_BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirOS_BSD) It's mostly OpenBSD. I haven't used it. I do know the BSD man pages are better (sometimes very very much better) than the Linux equivalents.

deno 15y ago

I’m using KDE/Linux.

irreverentbits 15y ago

This argument is, and has always been, ridiculous. The GNU user land is no more an operating system than the Linux kernel or the K desktop environment. It's just one component of a larger software system which most refer to by the convenient moniker of "Linux".

mikegerwitz 15y ago
It is disappointing to see "GNU/Linux" comments consistently harassed. Consider the history. The GNU project was conceived in 1983 to create a full free (as in freedom) operating system. This operating system combined many different projects (for example, X), in addition to creating its own components. Before Linux, it had one troubled component - the GNU Hurd, which was its kernel. Torvalds developed Linux (the kernel) in 1990 and released it under the GNU GPLv2 in 1991, which completed the GNU operating system by providing a working, stable kernel. The entire operating system was, and still is (except when GNU is not present, such as Android), GNU. The term GNU/Linux was used to give credit to both Torvalds and the GNU project. The term just as easily could have been "GNU/Linux/X" (and in fact that was used by the Yggdrasil distribution). Linux, as it was conceived, is a kernel. GNU, as it was conceived, is an operating system. There is an important distinction there. Fast forward a couple decades. Many people, in an effort to shorten the name "GNU/Linux", simply dropped the GNU portion and referred to the entire Operating System as "Linux". Also combine this with projects such as Android, which use Linux without GNU, and therefore are not GNU/Linux. Everyone has come to know any operating system that uses the Linux kernel simply by the name of "Linux". Is that correct? Well, that depends on how the term is used. "Linux distribution" is certainly correct --- if your operating system uses the Linux kernel, then yes, distributes Linux. But to consider Linux an operating system is incorrect from both a project and historical standpoint, because it is not --- it is a Linux-based operating system. But to call an entire operating system "Linux" is saying that the entire system that you are using is part of the Linux project. On the other hand, calling your operating system "GNU", as long as it uses GNU, is correct, because GNU was always developed to be an operating system - a collection of components. So given the history, why is the term "GNU/Linux" ridiculous? Why is the term "Linux" to refer to an entire operating system not ridiculous? Because that is the most popular term to refer to a Linux-based operating system? And given your statement > The GNU user land is no more an operating system than the Linux kernel or the K desktop environment. it would seem GNU is just as fitting to be used as Linux. So again, why is such a notion ridiculous?

zvrba 15y ago

> and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX GNU defaults to NOT being POSIX-compliant, which makes most of GNU software a PITA to build on platforms which default to being POSIX-compliant. Also, except for emacs, GNU is a failure. gcc we use today is an egcs fork, and the Linux kernel could have worked just as well with BSD userland.