Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is It Linux or GNU/Linux? (linuxjournal.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Should the Linux operating system be called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux"? These days, asking that question might get as many blank stares returned as asking, "Is it live or is it Memorex?" Some may remember that the Linux naming convention was a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Back then, if you called it "Linux", the GNU/Linux crowd was sure to start a flame war with accusations that the GNU Project wasn't being given due credit for its contribution to the OS. And if you called it "GNU/Linux", accusations were made about political correctness, although operating systems are pretty much apolitical by nature as far as I can tell.
The brouhaha got started in the mid-1990s when Richard Stallman, among other things the founder of the Free Software Movement who penned the General Public License, began insisting on using the term "GNU/Linux" in recognition of the importance of the GNU Project to the OS. GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel. According to this take, Linux was merely the kernel, and GNU software was the sauce that made Linux work. Noting that the issue seems to have died down in recent years, and mindful of Shakespeare's observation on roses, names and smells, I wondered if anyone really cares anymore what Linux is called. For once and all, I wanted to ask Slashdot crowd what they think.
The brouhaha got started in the mid-1990s when Richard Stallman, among other things the founder of the Free Software Movement who penned the General Public License, began insisting on using the term "GNU/Linux" in recognition of the importance of the GNU Project to the OS. GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel. According to this take, Linux was merely the kernel, and GNU software was the sauce that made Linux work. Noting that the issue seems to have died down in recent years, and mindful of Shakespeare's observation on roses, names and smells, I wondered if anyone really cares anymore what Linux is called. For once and all, I wanted to ask Slashdot crowd what they think.
GNU/Linux since Linux is only the kernel and GNU has provided most of the programs that are crucial for a working GNU/Linux system. Linux for short.
Call it whatever you want, don't correct me and I won't correct you.
No need to explain the significance of the GNU project. Or the role it played in getting Linux out there. But on my Debian system, I have software written by:
Just to name a few. Why would GNU be special enough to be named in one breath with Linux, but not those other authors? Makes no sense to me. Therefore, "Linux based OS" or similar will do fine. Or just name the specific distro or software component(s) and be done with it.
There is no rule in English grammar about splitting infinitives. There is such a "rule" in Latin (where infinitives are single words and can't be split).
". To Stallman,. proprietary software is EVIL, an evil which must be defeated."
Without freely distributed code we'd all be running windows fucking 10, sold and subjugated worse than BookFace. Proprietary software isn't evil, just a good proportion of the creators are. Without BSD's starting distribution of a high quality OS able to control X8* hardware, we'd all be fucked. As far as proprietary software needing to be defeated, well seems it's in the design.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The GNU/Linux argument was also propped up by the fact that you can swap out the Linux kernel with FreeBSD's kernel and keep (nearly) the entire rest of the Debian system (or other distros). In that case, it behaves very much like a Linux based distro, but there is no Linux in it. Not many people really used those other things though, and the argument kinda died out due to lack of interest.
Now enter Microsoft, who now has a "Windows Subsystem for Linux", but it's really just a compatibility layer to run all the GNU and other stuff on the Windows kernel. There's really very little "Linux" there.
Either one is preferable to systemd.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Well actually, Debian do call their "GNU/Linux", for the very practical reason that they also try other combinations such as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd, etc.
(And if you squint at it you'll notice that none of the Linux distribution in the microsoft app store actually still has bits from Linus' kernel.
Per Stallman's classification, those should be called GNU/NTkernel, it's still your garden variety distro, but running agaisnt the WinNT kernel and it's ability to also speak a minimalist subset of Linux kernel API.
So they are thing called "Linux" distro that litteraly contain no bits of the actual Linux kernel)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]