Stop calling it "Linux"

just say sluts. it is way shorter

You misspelled "Android".

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.

didnt read lol
it is GNU/Linux btw

I know this is copypasta, but neither GNU nor Linux are enough for a complete operating system. GNU and Linux together however are. XFree86 and Linux are not, so there is no point in adding XFree86 to the list.

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).

Then you're talking about Linux with no GNU.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for you, faggot, but I'm calling things by their name. If the Linux kernel is running by itself and applications are running on top of it, then it's Linux. However, if the GNU operating system is running on top of it, then you should call it GNU because it's its fucking name.
Woah. You're actually retarded. You're making my arguments for me.
You see, such a long name is stupid which is why I never suggested GNU/Linux in the first place.
Nobody talks about "Google Chrome/Microsoft Office/Windows 10/NT" nor do they talk about "Windows/NT", "Mac OS/Darwin" or "FreeBSD/kFreeBSD" and you know why? Because it's stupid and unnecessary to mention the kernel 99 % of the time.
People call every OS by it's name except GNU and it's because they're used to call it "Linux".
The OS is GNU. That's its name.

...

lol. what a retard

Muslc/busybox/linux.

Back to your designated shitposting imageboard.

GNU and the GPL are a joke, I'd much rather be associated with Linus than rms, even if it's technically wrong. I care about technology not politics and rms + the GNU project are more political activists than they are software developers, the entire project is just clones of programs written by other people, they don't have any ingenuity or tact, all they do is steal and complain. All Linus does is be open and honest and he just cares about getting things done, not so much the details or bureaucratic part of it.

Then use *BSD, Solaris, Haiku or even fucking Windows. GNU is, and has always been, a political project.
Using GNU without and it's projects without agreeing with it's mission it's retarded because they exist solely to fulfill that mission.
And so is BSD, Haiku, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows, Android, etc.
There's nothing wrong with using other people's code and sharing your own. That's what the entire Free Software and Open Source Software movements stand for.
Except not really. Coreutils developers were forbidding from studying BSD code since there was an ongoing legal battle between the BSD guys and AT&T and Stallman wanted to avoid that.
Other projects have been legally acquired by the FSF. GCC is the only exception, but IIRC Stallman was given permission to borrow code.
Which is why it's a different thing from GNU and the OS shouldn't be called Linux.

Gno. I use a multitude of systems and I don't even know you, I'm not dropping 1 just because you want me to, it's not practical or sane in the slightest. Get real.

I agree. It's very unfortunate. It should be called GNU. And I don't care much about Stallman or FSF, but most linux distros are gnu os plus linux kernel, so it should be called gnu. Sucks it's not the case.

Daily reminder that Linux is a clone of programs written by other people, they don't have any ingenuity or tact.

You don't get it. The name GNU is the name of the operating system as a whole. It was made to wipe Unix off the face of the earth by replacing it. The letter 'U' stands for Unix.
Imagine being the inventor of toffee. The term "toffee" doesn't exist yet, so you coin the term. Eight years into the experimentation with various recipes, you finally get the sugar and butter mix just right. Then someone has the bright idea to add a little bit of salt, and that combination of your sugar and you butter, plus salt, becomes the accepted recipe for toffee. It makes sense to refer to the candy as "toffee". It would be ridiculous to call the candy "salt".
GNU is to toffee what Linux is to salt.

GNU/Linux is even worse. They should call it GNU, or the GNU operating system (Linux kernel) in long form.

They should just call is Linux since that's what it is... oh wait they did. Stay delusional Tardman.

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.

tfw using busybox and not gnutils

checked, the approved pronunciation is ganoo loonix

Why is Android called Android and not Loonix then?

arent college girls usually more promiscuous?

...

IT'S CALLED GNU MINUS LINUX!

They don't. People call the whole system and also the kernel program both as Linux. This is a mistake. Overloading the Linux name to mean two things at the same time is wrong. To call the GNU OS as "Linux OS" is wrong when Linux was never an OS.

what linux distro is this?

...and stop being a faggot about people using words you don't like. And take your OCD medication. You're making an ass of yourself in public again.

It's "Linux".

L-i-n-u-x

Linux.

Just posting to say I agree. Linus's reign of terror on the free software movement must come to an end.

lol. what a retard

What?

It's actually Leenowks (Finnish)

I, for one, support OP's sentiments wholeheartedly.
He has inspired me to give Debian/GNUHurd a serious effort.
Also, I don't call it "Linux".
I call it Slackware.

Why is Android called Android and not Loonix then?

For the same reason Ubuntu is called Ubuntu and Arch is called Arch.

Stop asking such inane questions.

Why is Android called Android and not Loonix then?

For the same reason Ubuntu is called Ubuntu and Arch is called Arch.
Stop asking such inane questions.

That is actually called gnu/systemdick. I will stick to calling it muslC/busybox/linux thank you very much.

I actually do call it GNU/Linux in everyday conversation. Calling it just "Linux" is like calling the Windows operating system just "NT" or Mac OS "XNU" and is silly.

What if I make a distro called Linux?

*mind blown*

GNU isn't the name the creators gave to it. When Linus created his software he named it Linux. Just because you use parts from another program which were freely given, doesn't mean you are obligated to name your software after those parts. Richard Stallman preached his freedums shit, but when someone actually borrowed his software to do something THAT HE MISERABLY FAILED FOR MANY YEARS TO ACCOMPLISH, he demands that the operating system be named after his tools. How fucking typical of his type. Also, GNU code is ugly as fuck. GCC is fucking terrible. The sooner we fully purge the GNU virus from Linux the better.

People who think calling it GNU will improve the state of free software are like people who think calling niggers "black people" will make nigger stop acting like niggers.

aka, critical theory morons who think they can shape reality by manipulating language.

kys you fat commie faggot, toe cheese isn't real food.

Only faggots get aids you moron.

Jesus fuck what year was this pasta written?

Who do you think would be more mad if someone was to do that?

windows

moron

GNU: an operating system
GNU/Linux: an operating system
Linux: a kernel

Toffee: a candy
Toffee/Salt: a candy
Salt: not a candy

I would probably go for 'salted caramel' as an analogy here, in future, if I was you :^)

it's actually lye nucks you filthy dixie cunt

GNU is a troll project and a license to troll copyrightfags/jews/porkys, you name it.
The only way to fight for human freedom in post-industrial world is through intellectual property licenses and reverse patent trolling.

Seconded.
Lye-nuckz.

You've missed Stallman's point. Linux is not an operating system in itself becaue Linux is a kernel program and not an operating system. Normally, people pair the Linux program with the operating system called GNU. This is the point.

Source?
My use of the term operating system, narrows it down to the part of the system that talks to the hardware and allocates resources for the other programs in userspace. One confusion might lie in the term operating system. You obviously use it to include userland tools, where as I don't. I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, but I wouldn't know where to clearly draw the line if I included userland tools in the term. Where do you does things stop being the operating system for you?

That being said I don't object to using GNU/Linux for a Linux kernel with a GNU shell. To me it's not a particularly correct term, but I like GNU. How about the GNU system actually started to be active in distributing a system to it's users and call it GNU. Because WTF is GNU? No one knows. It's a vague term about a category of software with no end-product.

Linux is from the Swedish/Finland swedish name Linus (pronounced lee-NUHS but light l, shorter/lighter ee, and not as hard stress on the second syllable)
Linux should be pronounced like that but with an x instead of s.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linus, is in fact, rms/Linus, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, rms plus Linus.

I assume you use the full name "Microsoft Windows" when you're talking about it? Remember, without Microsoft there would be no Windows so please show proper deference.

etc.

Or get bent GNU autists.

WORD OF GOD: youtube.com/watch?v=uK0xXFZtJ8Q

Except Microsoft Windows is developed solely by Microsoft. If Apple developed the majority of the operating system then it went by the name Microsoft Windows it would be a travesty.

GNU: an operating system
GNU/Linux: still an operating system
Linux: a kernel, not an operating system

Caramel: a candy
Salted Caramel: still a candy
Salt: not a candy

Linux is great.

You're an obsessive-compulsive autist, and not in a good way. And RMS is a sweaty jew. Seriously, fuck that kike.

This! Fuck the technobabble of IT, just lead the people with simple instructions to knowledge.
Simply telling people to get into Slackware has been more successful than telling them to get into Linux and having them get confused by the army of mostly useless distributions.

This tbh.
Stallmanism has become a religious sect or mental illness at this point.

How do you pronounce GNU/Linux?
With or without the slash?

pls refrain from posting my gf thank u

...

...

Ganoo slash Linux. I like to use the term "GNU with Linux".

...