GNU / Linux or just Linux - Hardware & Software

What's your opinion on the GNU / Linux or just Linux fight? Discuss below I'd just like to interject for a moment. 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. And on the opposing side: 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 whereever 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.

calling any distro gnu/linux in normal conversation gets you laughed at for being a tool

Linux. I don't dissagree with Stallman but I'm not agreeing with him either. He seems like a bit of an asshole with how he downplays the importance of Linux (see pic), while GNU can be replaced with some other toolchain/compiler. Meanwhile HURD is and will forever be a joke. http://www.escomposlinux.org/jcantero/ld/images/transp-stallman-gnu-linux.jpg

Usage is the ultimate decider of validity in language, in my opinion. The vast majority of people, i'd comfortably wager, call it Linux.

Linux, for the same reason I do not call my Computer "Motherboard,CPU,GPU,Memory,HardStorage,etc/Computer"

i call it Linux because it's simple. and it would take a while to explain what GNU is

I sympathise with RMS - GNU, providing many important components in the free software ecosystem, definitely got snubbed by the Linux focus. And the fact that we call the operating system "Linux" irks me because the Linux kernel is not at all the distinguishing factor. In terms of overall system architecture and user experience, a standard Fedora install has much more in common with, say, a FreeBSD GNOME desktop - to the point that if you just do some office work and web browsing and don't touch the terminal you couldn't tell the difference - than something like Android. But of course, the fact that the typical Linux desktop happens to run GNU coreutils etc. and a normal Android image doesn't has nothing to do with this difference either. It's everything else that makes up the respective platforms. Alas, I don't have a succinct yet accurate name for it either, and everybody's been calling it "Linux" for decades, so I guess that's what we're sticking with.

Just Linux. GNU / Linux may be technically more accurate but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Linux, any other way just takes too much time to say/type. the FSF tried creating new names for the whole GNU/Linux thing but they cant ever decide on a name.

It's as much GNU/Linux as it is <your desktop manager>/Linux or <your package manager>/Linux, and here's why: In practically all Linux distributions, the operating system consists of tons and tons of small packages. The GNU programs cover a significant amount of the lower level ones, sure, but far from all of them. There's X/wayland, login managers, desktop managers, window managers, network related tools, package managers, and a lot more non-GNU stuff. Seriously, why should the name of the operating system be defined in terms of a very specific subset of installed packages? You might as well name it after the one thing that lies at the lowest of levels: Linux. Or just specifically your distribution, as in "I installed NixOS on my new XPS 15 2-in-1 laptop today, it reminded me of the times I installed Arch."

Stallman is absolutely right and the technical name should 100% be GNU/Linux. That said, I do not mind the colloquial usage of just "Linux", and Stallman seems a bit petty for how much he cares.

Linux. Languages change, and the word 'Linux' has evolved to encompass all of the Linux experience. GNU/Linux is still valid... but it's like calling a dog "Canis lupus familiaris.'

depends how formal im being

With GNU portions and packages you installed, of course. If instead of swapping the kernel you swap out the GNU toolset with something else, say busybox, you'd have almost the same operating system apart from small technical differences here and there. The point is that GNU coreutils, the kernel and all the other packages make the operating system together. Since they're mostly highly cohesive, swapping any one component with an alternative will leave you with a very similar OS. From that perspective, whacking on "GNU/" in front of the kernel name sounds like you want to put extra focus on the fact that it's running the GNU toolset. Why do I never hear busybox/Linux? Busybox fulfills a very similar function to the GNU toolset, but when that's used instead no one insists people include it in the name. When people refer to Linux, they often refer to the set of operating systems that run the Linux kernel. That includes distros that don't have the GNU toolset. GNU/Linux refers to a strict subset of Linux distributions. Linux distros with alternatives are still. Excluding them by insisting on GNU/Linux is just mean.

What are you talking about? People always mean GNU/Linux when they say Linux. It's for this very reason that anybody who calls Android "Linux" gets laughed at. What we colloquially refer to as Linux is GNU/Linux. There's some flexibility there sure, but Android/Linux doesn't cut it.

There's a lot of recursive acronyms with Linux. GNU stands for GNU Not UNIX, much like WINE: WINE Is Not Emulator. We don't use GNU alongside Linux because unlike using the term "Microsoft Windows" we have names like "Debian Linux" Or simply Debian etc. It'd be even more annoying saying something like "Yeah, I have GNU/Debian LInux" Even with that said it's best to just simply say Debian. Even more so it's best to describe the OS/Distro you're using by saying which version it is. Like Windows 10 or Debian 9.4. It makes more sense that way.

No, the components written by GNU aren't the distinguishing factor either. Most of them - that is, coreutils and a few other packages - are just free implementations of earlier UNIX userland software anyway. What makes Android different is the addition of a stack providing strict app isolation, "activities" for invoking applications, mobile UI, multimedia services, the abstraction/hiding of anything vaguely UNIX-y away from the user and application programmers, etc., all wrapped up in Android's Java APIs. Not the omission of GNU. In fact, you can even install Debian into your Android system and anybody using your phone would be none the wiser until they fire up a terminal.

Felt the need to share this here. https://twitter.com/jeiting/status/987832922873839616

I just call it Linux, because if you say GNU/Linux in daily speech, people will think you're more autistic than you already are for knowing what Linux is

systemd/Linux Lennart Poettering did nothing wrong

Writing GNU/Linux is like being force to write gender-neutral words. It might be more accurate but it just doesn't roll off the tongue

Chaotic Evil option: "Ubuntu"

It's semantics IMO. In context of most dialogue, "Linux" means exactly the same thing to the average person as "GNU/Linux." Anyone who says otherwise is a pedant.

To be fair you normally name it after the version name. e.g. Windows 10 / Windows 8 / Windows 7 / Windows Vista / Windows XP etc.

systemd is bloat

The main problem with systemd isn't that its bloat, but because it creates dependencies on itself (e.g. with gnome) meaning that you can't easily replace it like you can with anything else.

X Window System/Linux

gnu/kernel panic

The Loonix..

Linux in general speak, GNU/Linux if I want to win an argument/mess with someone. Either way I mean GNU/Linux but most of the time the preface isn't needed.