Hello. I want to discuss something with Holla Forums.
Basically, Stallman endorses the use of the term "GNU/Linux". But I don't see that being understood properly by newcomers. Sure, Stallman means the correct meaning, "The GNU operating system running on the Linux kernel", but many people that are newcomers to Linux and free software think the term "GNU/Linux" implies that the Linux kernel is a subset of the GNU Operating System Project, while it is not. It is a completely independent project... Well, you could say that it is being compiled by the GCC exclusively there, but that would be like saying any program/kernel being exclusively compiled by the GCC is part of the GNU Operating System Project, which is simply not true. If you wanted, out of pure spite, and had a fuckton of time, you could create the necessary patches for a compiler you want to make it GCC-compatible and port the Linux kernel to something other than GCC. That is not necessary, though. It just irritates me that people think the Linux kernel and the GNU Operating System are symbiotic. There are much more coreutils, shell utilities and whatnot sets out there. Toybox, busybox, etc...
TL;DR use of the term GNU/Linux implies Linux is part of GNU, but it's not.
Why I don't think GNU/Linux is the right term
Other urls found in this thread:
If GNU has no kernel, it is not an operating system. Hurd is never happening.
Stallman is also a sperg about using GNU/Linux when GNU is completely irrelevant on the matter.
Without GNU tools, there would have been no Linux.
That's not how history works.
Newcomers like you? Nobody really calls it that. Just "Linux" or *NIX.
Didn't it encourage Linus to start Linux though?
That's not how it works. There are Non GNU Linux operating systems right now, like Alpine, that's all that matters.
...
upboat
yeah linus should also append the name of the hardware and editor he used to develop linux too
REDHAT/Linux is the right term
You asked for the history, nignog.
The trash is where YOU should go into.
I didn't. I know the history as it happened.
What nobody knows is what would have happened without GNU. It's outside the scope of history.
That changes things. I didn't know some varieties of Linux were made without involving GNU anything.
It doesn't work that way. The term "GNU Linux" implies that the Linux program is part of the GNU project. The term "GNU/Linux" does not imply this.
If you like, other names to use include: GNU with Linux, GNU+Linux or Lignux.
GNU has a kernel. GNU Hurd is not a kernel.
That's fine. That specific system is not a GNU/Linux system and should not be named GNU/Linux. The name GNU/Linux should only apply to systems that rely on the GNU OS and the Linux kernel. For example, Android OS does not make use of GNU in its OS. In all distributions of Android OS, you will not find any of them that rely on the GNU OS so it's not right to call that GNU/Linux/Android.
So you write a thesis about epigenetic changes associated with bodybuilding, and you've titled it "Epigenetics of Bodybuilding", but you strain to write an abstract in a timely manner. Someone named named Linus steps in, writes an abstract for you, and submits it. But the title has been changed to "Linus Epigenetics". It makes sense to credit Linus for his contribution, but it doesn't make sense to put his name in the title. The thesis is still about the epigenetics of bodybuilding, not about the "Linus" epigenetics.
GNU is the name of the operating system made to replace Unix (hence the name "Gnu is Not Unix"). Linus Torvalds contributed a kernel that can be used with the GNU operating system. It makes sense to credit Torvalds for that contribution, but it doesn't make sense to totally rename the operating system after him. It's still the GNU operating system, not the "Linus" operating system.
Nobody is renaming the GNU operating system. We're talking about the naming of the Linux kernel here, not about GNU. GNU is an operating system and nobody disagrees.
Stallman isn't calling for people to rename the Linux kernel. Stallman is calling for people to name the system by its proper name: GNU with Linux added. This is to clear up the common mistake that people attach the name "Linux" to the whole system.
I just say linux but then again I'm not autistic.
GNU created a lot of the tools in the userland. It's like Windows/NT or Mac/BSD, ChromeOS is Chrome/Linux and Android is Android/Linux. Honestly, if you're a normie that never uses the command line, it could even be KDE/Linux, since K project has so many of their own apps.
It's an autistic way of going about things, even though I see where he's coming from.
That's understating it. They created the (most common) bootloader, compiler, standard library, shell, standard unix utilities, debugger, many non-standard libraries, a very popular graphical toolkit (so popular that avoiding software that uses GTK is almost impossible), a very popular desktop environment, many very popular programs, including at least three of the popular GNU/Linux text editors (nano, gedit, Emacs), the most popular compression (gzip), and so on. GNU is responsible for a far larger share than any other project.
Taking out Linux is much easier than taking out GNU. Debian and Arch have GNU/kFreeBSD variants and GNU/HURD variants that don't contain any Linux but still contain all that GNU. Even the BSDs are not free of GNU, although FreeBSD is trying. The (actually useful) Linux distro that comes closest to getting rid of GNU is Alpine Linux, but that's only if you stay with the very small base system and ignore that its compiler is GCC.
GNU is enormous.
Considering Windows decided to call their GNU compatibility layer "Linux on Windows" even though it's literally the GNU tools running on the NT kernel AMD there's not a single line of Linux code in there, the battle is lost.
The distributions are going to be called Linux for ever.
Linux does sound better than GNU, but it's a shame.
GTK is GIMP Tool Kit, not GNU Tool Kit.
GTK+ is the GNU('s Not Unix){1,} Image Manipulation Program Toolkit Plus Twin Turbo Alpha Tournament Edition
Just calling it "Linux" brings up the opposite problem though. It results in people referring to components of the GNU operating system from the GNU project as being a part of Linux. For example, there's tons of documentation written by third parties that compares coreutils from the different standards of *nix to each other, eg it'll compare the SysV version of cat against the BSD version of cat against the Sun version of cat against the GNU version of cat. Except it doesn't call it the GNU version of cat, in spite of the fact that it comes from the GNU project and was intended for the GNU operating system; it calls it the "Linux" version of cat, despite the fact that the Linux project has never written any version of the cat program. And this, of course, happens to all the other programs from the GNU coreutils as well, such as the GNU versions of cp, pwd, chmod, echo, and lots and lots more. And that's not fair because the GNU project added so much more functionality to its utilities than other standards of *nix did, as anyone here who's ever tried BSD or Illumos should know, and it did it all without even the original Unix versions of the programs to use as a base, having instead to re-write them from scratch and add the extra functionality from scratch. The Linux project didn't do anything to create these utilities, yet thousands of people give them all the credit.
TL;DR use of the term Linux operating system implies GNU is part of Linux, but it's not.
O-okay.
GIMP is the General Image Manipulation Program, it only got incorporated under GNU (and of course renamed for compliance with FSF PR) when it was already a mature project.
You should call it GNU. Do you call Windows 7 "Windows NT" or OSX "Darwin"? No? Then why call GNU "Linux"? The userland is more important than the kernel.
Hurd is waiting for OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE because writing drivers for shit hardware is a waste of time reverse engineering shit.
Linux is shit because it's not GNU as in Libre and contains a lot of blobs, bundled in "distros" which includes proprietary microcode botnets to make every proprietary hardware run properly and it's ugly botnet machine that becomes dysfunctional around 2038.
I never said it was the GNU Tool Kit, but it is part of GNU. GIMP is part of GNU (GNU Image Manipulation Program, originally known as General Image Manipulation Program until its developers approached Richard Stallman to ask if they could change General to GNU), and GTK is maintained by GNOME, which is part of GNU. It's part of GNU both by maintainership and by acronym, although indirectly in both cases.
Originally, it was designed for Gimp but now, its name is simply GTK+ and nothing more.
Also, GNU was always the name of the operating system as a whole. The developers just happened to complete the userland programs first. Linus threw in his kernel at the very end and the GNU developers went, OK, this monolithic kernel works, makes the GNU operating system is usable -- the microkernel is no longer a high priority -- we can focus on other stuff.
what is gegl
en.wikipedia.org
They are almost finished with the migration
Then use that non gnu/linux operative systems.
How is this at all related to the original meaning of the GTK acronym?
I think I didn't understand the post.
The correct term is:
GNU/Linux
GTK originally stood for "GIMP Tool Kit", as that post said. It was replying to a post which didn't say it stood for anything else, so that correction was probably a mistake, even though it was true. It purely concerned the name, it had nothing to do with GEGL as far as I can tell.
what's wrong with it though?
OP here. I think GNU+Linux is the actually correct term here, since it implies there are two components (GNU and Linux) working simultaneously.
absolutely proprietary
You believe the GNU/Linux doesn't do this? For me, GNU/Linux, GNU+Linux, GNU with Linux, GNU and Linux, are all synonyms.
For me when you say GNU/Linux it feels like GNU is a directory and Linux is a project under that directory, pardon my autism. I think GNU+Linux gets the point across better.
Lincuck detected
...
Nigger, rms made emacs.
I was referring to GNU. And GNU is fine, it just isnt particularly usefull on its own
My objection to "GNU/Linux" is one of marketing.
Most people think of operating systems (if they even know what it is) as a single entity: Windows is Windows, Mac is Mac, and Linux is... GNU slash Linux slash Xorg slash Gnome slash systemd, or whatever. Fuck that shit, how are you going to convince noobs to give it a chance when you make it sound so complicated?
By just calling it Linux...lol
and the problem is not that it *sounds* complicated, it *is* complicated.
I mean dont get me wrong, I sometimes love the power and simpleness of GNU/Linux/everyoneelsewhoevercontributed.
But thats like saying 'I like to use a club while hunting'. Its simple but not very practical for what you usually do as a mainstream hunter
tbh I would just call it "GNU' if the average person would just understand that
Really, the "Linux" as it's usually talked about (~its Wikipedia article) should be called Freedesktop/Linux. It describes accurately what it is and how it differs from other OSes which look similar. Likewise TrueOS should be called (or described as a distribution of) Freedesktop/FreeBSD. How to call X-less Linuxes, I really don't know. mostlyPOSIX/Linux is the best I can think of, but wouldn't that apply to Android too?
what if we'd just reference the distro?
I mean Windows is also based of off shit but the version is the most important in most situations. I use for example Ubuntu, which is not entirely Linux. Nor is Windows 10 entirely windows in general
Neither is Linux. Linux actually depends on GNU or GNU alternatives for compiling (GCC) and booting (GRUB).
Linux without GNU is at least as useless as GNU without Linux.
who the fuck calls it *nix
gay
your point?
GNU is a complete operating system. Even in 1991, it was still a 99% complete operating system.
What's so complicated about "GNU with Linux" or "GNU plus Linux" or even "Lignux"?
there's nothing hard about it. but the average consumer doesn't care, it knows it as Linux. its only nerds like us who'd go AKCHUALLY..
I mean try explaining why its GNU/Linux. Same thing goes for tractors. A mechanic might have different names for different tractors but to me, they're all the same
another thing is that eventhough my brain is just 10% of my body,
it makes me who I am. without a brain I could 'function', in a basic way. but my brain deserves the credit for making me what I am
Anything could have been a 99% complete operating system in 1991.