3 ms·

Then there are operating systems based on the Linux kernel that are not GNU/Linux, most famously Android. For something to be GNU/Linux, it must use the GNU ba

Then there are operating systems based on the Linux kernel that are not GNU/Linux, most famously Android. For something to be GNU/Linux, it must use the GNU base system and toolchain - the core/find/inet/binutils, glibc, bash, gcc and so on. There are generic Linux distributions that also do not. Alpine Linux is one of them, using musl libc and busybox, eschewing GNU software wherever possible. Though, the question arises - is a distribution of Linux always GNU/Linux if it uses GNU software at build time, even if it's almost entirely stripped of it at runtime? That is to say, the use of gcc, GNU make and autotools are largely unavoidable in bootstrapping a Linux platform, or even Unix software in general these days - even if llvm/clang are making progress.

teddyh 12y ago
True; I forgot about those (post edited to add footnote). I would say that if a project goes out of its way to eliminate GNU components, it is only fair to refrain from calling it “GNU”. But it isn’t “Linux” either – that’s still the kernel. There is not, in fact, a name for such distributions. Maybe “Anti-GNU” could work, since to remove the GNU components, you would have to have a rather large anti-GNU zeal. These are rather rare, so I guess the need for a special name has been small.
- justincormack 12y ago
  There are more now not using glibc, such as Alpine Linux (which also uses busybox by default instead of many of the GNU utils). If you neither use glibc or gcc (say you use clang) you are getting a fair way away from the original GNU operating system.