Should you say GNU/Linux

[Negrate]

so we all know the imfamous GNU/Linux copypasta but im curious do you say or should you say GNU/Linux unironically i know they made alot of core stuff but it just seems like kind of a pain to say GNU Slash Linux so im wondering do only GNU/Autists call it GNU/Linux or am i doing the community a disservice calling it linux

 

[AirdropShitposts]

I only advocate using Linux with proprietary software. We should encourage trust in lived experiences among the community rather than hypercapitalist anti-trans notions of looking through each other's code.

I know this isn't in Q&A but it still felt like a Q&A thread to me so I responded appropriately.

 

[FiddleAFox]

Nah, GNU helped a bit but the Linux kernel itself was primarily developed by Linus Torvalds and just decided that the GPLv2 was the way to go for him. You don't call a car an engine/transportation device.

 

[Geranium]

No.

But then, I’m pretty sure Richard Stallman has a humiliation fetish (it would explain a lot), so… yes?

Edit: More seriously,

should you say GNU/Linux unironically i know they made alot of core stuff but it just seems like kind of a pain to say GNU Slash Linux so im wondering do only GNU/Autists call it GNU/Linux or am i doing the community a disservice calling it linux

The argument (as I understand it) is that Linux is just the kernel, and you need a lot more than the OS kernel to have a usable operating system, which is where the GNU tools come in (including glibc!). So it’s the Linux kernel plus the GNU tools that make the full OS.

In the BSD world the position is that if these packages are essential to anyone using your operating system, then they should be distributed all together. This is a big part of why you don’t have “distros” of say FreeBSD (there’s just one: FreeBSD) whereas there isn’t a full “official” Linux that you can boot from, but you need Debian or whatever.

 

[SNEED.EXE]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. The correct term is GNU plus Linux, as I've recently taken to calling it.

 

[DrNow]

I only advocate using Linux with proprietary software. We should encourage trust in lived experiences among the community rather than hypercapitalist anti-trans notions of looking through each other's code.

I know this isn't in Q&A but it still felt like a Q&A thread to me so I responded appropriately.

I tried using big brain distros but then decided I like things like wifi and my Super Nintendo emulator to work out the box so I stuck with babbys first Linux Mint.

 

[TheDarknessGrows]

What's a GNU?

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Yes.

I won't though.

 

[Faceless Whore]

If you're going to acknowledge GNU why aren't you going to acknowledge all the other groups and projects that contributed to Linux as well?

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

The point he made was kinda decent; Linux was the kernel but the GNU userspace was already there to be taken and combined to make a full system.

But GNU stuff isn't even as important anymore, the last big thing they had that nobody else had (in the open source/free software world) was GCC, but clang and LLVM and friends are perfectly adequate now.

Anyway GNU/Linux just sounds gay

 

[Absolutego]

The whole GNU/Linux meme is just Stallman throwing a decades-long tantrum about people using the most immediate, lowest-level feature to differentiate Linux from Unix instead of giving him the credit he feels he's due. It's true that GNU is doing the bulk of the visible work in most Linux distros, but it can do the bulk of the work on Unix-based distros too. It's not the differentiating factor between the two.

Hell, the turbo-nerds do weird shit like build Linux distros using Busybox, excising GNU entirely.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

Stallman is a blessed soul but he's in a completely different galaxy of autism from even us fringe forum posters. it is proper to say GNU plus Linux in his presence when you give your ritual offering of foot skin and toenail clippings. using it in any other context makes you sound like a repulsive turbosperg.

 

[The Backwards Man]

GNU/Balenciaga

 

[Samuel Hyde]

GNU/Linux is fine if you want to make a specific point about an alternative system. Its probably fair to say that Android is Linux without being GNU/Linux but going out of the way to call Debian GNU/Linux is a distinction without a difference since we know that most Linux distros come with GNU utils.

On the other hand, saying Linux+systemd makes more sense, will enrage more people, and will lead to more entertaining conversations. For one thing there actually are a few (almost) mainstream desktop distros which use an alternative like void or alpine. And yes I know that alpine uses busybox.

 

[SJW]

The correct answer is BSD.

 

[sodaboard]

nobody says Windows/NT or macOS/XNU, it's just Linux and Stallman can bitch about it until he rots in his grave. fossfags truly cannot understand how to market a product or make people want to use it, that's why they insist on making a mascot for everything to hide their incompetence with social interaction and pitching.

 

[The Ugly One]

The short answer is yes, the only person who actually says GNU/Linux is Richard Stallman, and he does this because he is autistic. The only reason to say GNU/Linux is you're a Stallman acolyte and don't know how soap works.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

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.