Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
I'm not trying to attack him, but this is pretty funny.
Context: 11 days ago DT released a video where he called out the people who refer to Linux distributions as "Linux" as opposed to "GNU/Linux". Today he released a video where he did exactly that.
Good catch and funny. I mean people still say Xerox something when they're going to use a non xerox copier. But we all know what we mean.
Indeed. "Linux" now means "literally Linux, the kernel" and also "an operating system that uses Linux as the kernel". Kind of like how people say they use "Windows" but they mean that they use "Windows 11".
The only reason saying "GNU/Linux" helps is if you want to give credit to GNU. It doesn't add clarity to anything. Which is warranted, but also, what if I forked GNU and relabeled it as linux-tools. I believe that's within my right, isn't it? To fork and copy things.
It's kinda odd to be like "copyright is bad, the works should be free, and just pass around naturally!" ... "but also make sure I get credit"
I've come to realize that semantics are vastly more important than many of us realize.
Saying GNU/Linux isn't about giving credit to the GNU Project so much as it is about spreading the message that GNU represents. GNU represents a cooperative, collaborative philosophy diametrically opposed to the oppressive, exploitative capitalist ideals championed by today's ruling class. By using "GNU" we remind users that the freedom we enjoy with our computing today was made possible, not by a kernel, but by the ideals of community and camaraderie embedded into our software by way of the GPL.
I don't see anything antithetical about anyone wanting to share their work while at the same time wanting to be credited for it. On the contrary, most copyright regimes have specific carve outs for moral rights such as attribution. Even the most liberal of the creative commons license options includes an attribution requirement. That said, it isn't just within your right to rename things you fork, it may be a requirement. For reference just think back to the controversy surrounding IceWeasel.
Saying GNU/Linux does not give that message to 99% of people though. If I say that the SteamDeck actually runs on GNU/Linux to a normie gamer, they are more likely to be like "ok, that sounds confusing I'll stick to xbox". And anyone within the community already gets it. We all know the meme, we all get it. Semantics goes both ways. Sometimes you win hearts and minds, and sometimes you just annoy people who don't care.
And in the name of semantics, "attribution" and "credit" are not the same. I'm obligated to say IceWeasel, or as I've taken to calling it, "The libre Firefox fork known as IceWeasel"... It's important to call it by the full name every time, because Firefox is really the basis of 99.9% of the code in the repo. The repo gives full attribution to firefox and mozilla, but when we refer to it, we never actually give credit to the original.
And since we don't need to call out the original if we fork something, if I fork GNU-utils and call it linux-OS-utils. And then build on my own distro, would that be a fully Linux OS? Even though its functionally and codewise identical to a "GNU/Linux" distro?
To me the credit thing is less about "oh they made it so they deserve the credit", and more about spreading word about the free software movement. Software freedom is good, and GNU is all about software freedom, but people won't find that by searching for "Linux"
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering 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!
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.
Actually, I was referring to Alpine Linux which doesnt use GNU...
CHECKMATE
Unless it's android, saying linux implies the entire community of projects that have become a part of linux.
GNU was one of those communities but it's not the only one which is why saying GNU/Linux is stupid lol.
Gonna start telling mac users to state they use posix /s
The whole GNU thing has always came off as butthurt from RMS since Linux got all the glory while he and his team of contributors shit the bed on the Hurd kernel.
Let's not forget that X.org + all the desktop environments which are very important parts of a functioning OS are not GNU projects either. At what point do we need to say GNU+X11+KDE+Linux?
All I know is if you say that machine over there runs Linux, I know what you're talking about.
Donald Trump uses Linux?
im worried about a Linux chain
GUN/Linux