GNU/Linux vs. Linux
 

So, which is it? GNU/Linux or just Linux. And why? Convince me that your name preference is right.

Linux. The kernel is Linux, and the kernel is the operating system. The tools for working in that is GNU, but then, we should be calling it GNU/xmms/X11/gaim/mozilla/.../Linux. Really, you don't even NEED GNU stuff for Linux. You could always use Busybox, like my Zaurus PDA does. That's Linux. It's not GNU/Linux. Perhaps it's Sharp/Busybox/QT/Linux?

I thought it was technically GNU/Linux, but that's gay, so I use "Linux".

Antagony is right. GNU is ghey.

Anytime someone says "It's GNU/LInux not LInux!!" I just want to slap that linux nazi over the head and tell him to get a life ;)

Properly its GNU/Linux in all senses of being a distro. Linux all by itself is a rather boring thing to be. Its because of GNU liscensing that linux has become something that people have come to adore.

Oh yeah, I don't use it.

Go watch Revolution OS - http://us.imdb.com/Title?0308808

GNU/Linux is too long.

GNU/Linux isn't the distro. Red Hat, Debian, etc. are Linux distributions. GNU does NOT distribute Linux. Everything you do runs the GNU tools, yes, but as I said before, if you were to put Busybox in its place, it would no longer be GNU/Linux. It wouldn't be as powerful, but it wouldn't be GNU. GNU has been working forever on their Hurd kernel. THAT would be GNU/Hurd, or GNU Hurd, or whatever, as it's actually theirs.

Linux is the kernel. Red Hat Linux is a distro. Debian Linux is a distro. GNU/Linux would have to be GNU's version of Linux, but they don't have their own Linux kernel, or a distro. Sorry guys.

Exactly, ChipX86.

RMS would be most upset that most of us don't give a rip what his precious name for the OS he didn't write is....

That said, he's got a point. Most of the tools I use when I'm running Linux are GNU tools. I've compiled a kernel or two in my time, but that's really the only interaction I have with it. So in my day to day use, it's more accurate to say I'm running a GNU system than a Linux system. GNU tools on the Hurd kernel would feel much the same....

Naw, fuck that. It's Linux.

RMS does far too much in the way of quibbling.

GNU tools are integral in creating the system, and for the most part, administering the system.

But, unless you live solely at the command line there's a whole lot in most linux distros other GNU utilities and they are the things that most users interact with.

pine from UW. X from Xfree. Mozilla from mozilla. KDE, ghostscript (which will no longer be a GNU util), perl, apache, and the list could go on and on. Even when I do find myself at the command line, it's not gnu stuff I spend most of my time with.

Screen to keep my shells alive when I exit X. sometimes ksh93 (open source version from AT&T) or bash as my shell, pine as my mail reader, perl as my toolkit.

I do use grep, sed and find quite a bit, and of course vim for system level stuff, but editting code I find xemacs (nonGNU) in viper mode to be ideal.

There are far too many people who could attempt to hang their star on linux. But places that favor and install the GNU version of the system software and use it for it's consistency, don't call what they end up with GNU/Solaris, or GNU/AIX or GNU Services for Unix.

without GNU utilities you can't do much with Linux

Errr... No. It's GNU/Linux.

Calling GNU/Linux Linux is extremely wrong. It's not right in any way at all.

Well, I hope for your sake that you don't use GNU then. I mean if you think it's "ghey".

Blast from teh past!

OMG thread necro!

But really, GNU/Linux is the retarded name. Richard Stallman just wanted credit for what he thinks is his operating system. X-Windows is just as much a part of Linux as is GNU. Stallman is just a huge dick who is jealous that he couldn't write a kernel.

The basic reason GNU demands its share in name is bacause of its contribution and its existance far prior to Linux kernal development.

Linux,the kernal, was written and tested using GNU tools.

Stallman is not idiot. He developed GCC by which Linus developed the kernal.

But GNU/Linux is quite long to say nad type.


http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html by Stallman

Okay, I hope you don't use "the operating system Linux" then. I mean, if you use the GNU tools with it. GNU/Linux that is...

Do you actually call it that, though? When your mom asks you what sort of computers you use, do you say, "Well, mom, I have a Windows machine, and two that run GNU/Linux"?

As is so often the case, it's a purely political question. And with purely political questions, I tend to come down on the side of what happens in the real world, rather than some idealized theory.

(Since posting in this thread, I've adopted OSX as my platform of choice, btw.)

I would call it by the shorter name. For the sake of practicality.

Call it Freddy for all I care. Linux is a great alternative to anything from Microsoft. Lighten up folks. Just call it Linux and be done. I am still a newbie when it comes to Linux but I have compiled my own kernal. MS Windows in any flavor is just out of control. I just bought a new computer from Dell and had to pay extra to avoid Vista. I will be back on Linux soon. Probably Ubuntu. I like Linux much more than I like XP Pro. But I really don't care about some stupid name game. Yes, there are several different distro's but it's just a matter of preference. To me it's just Linux.

I say that I have two machines running GNU/Linux. You may not believe me but I always call GNU/Linux GNU/Linux. Except when some friend complained and he didn't want me to say slash. So I just said GNU Linux.

Eh, lighten up, be enlighted, call it GNU/Linux.

... wait ... there is more than a command prompt? (kidding btw) Man ... bash is my life! :p

I agree .. its just Linux .. not GNU/Linux - thats just lame. If you want to be all super linux nerd then you might as well call it: GNUnotunix/Linux

.. ps .. eat my sigline

.. hey, since we are in-fighting as all good nerds do .. lets start the topic of the most l337 distro.

..Mandrake! (gag @ Mandriva)

RMS told the Linux users' group I used to belong to that he would not come speak to us unless we changed to a being GNU/Linux users' group. Also wow this thread is old.

yotta: the FSF did the same with our LUG, so we temporarily changed the name to the DePaul GNU/Linux User's Group, then changed it to something else - using just Linux - a year or two later.

Lame? When did truth become lame? Your argument sucks.

It -is- lame. And the truth? The truth is that I am -sure- you have NO clue what you are talking about. The first kernel was non-GNU. Hell it took them a year to port the GNU C compiler into Linux.

It was in the early 90s that the term "Linux/GNU/X" was applied to the scope of Linux. Then a few years later it was termed (by some uber nerds) "GNU/Linux".

Hell .. even Linus Torvalds prefers to refer to it as Linux - its that twat Stallman that insists on: "GNU slash Linux". He can kiss my /usr/ass

According to you. I am okay with that - after all, your argument sucks++ ;)

----

The moral of the story is: call it whatever the hell you want. Just don't expect other people to follow your delusions.

Really, the GNU in GNU/Linux has significant historical relevance in the OSS movememnt and the developement of Linux as a viable desktop OS.

But really, technology and language are evolutionary, so when you say Linux, it's understood that it means more without having to say more.

And, of course, the most important part of communciation is being uderstood, and if you say Linux, it's understood.

Your mileage may vary.

Stallman is an interesting guy, but he's not a god.

Peace,

Pierre

It doesn't matter that it took them a year to port it. What you say doesn't make sense.

Calling GNU/Linux just Linux while knowing about GNU/Linux is evil.

Do justice to the GNU project!
Promote the values of freedom that GNU stands for!
Inform others that those values of freedom brought the system into existence!

Call it GNU/Linux!

It's an operating system. It makes computers go. Getting religious about it is just silly.

It wasn't that long ago, but I think it was PC World that ran a side by side of several linux distros (about 6) and Ubuntu came out on top for stability, usability and hardware drivers.

I'm forced to use linux at work (SLES 9 & 10) and I use it at home for select purposes, but I'll stick to XP (damn you, Vista!)

What does this has to do with the controversy?

Controversy? Really?

If you look out in the world, it's pretty much settled. The only people who still think it's a controversy are RMS and, evidently, Jocke.

Wow, someone is identifying to closely with this :)

Just for the record again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GNU Operating System GNU's kernel wasn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used by millions. (Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux.)

I think people that would find this to be a controversy are those that do spend their time maintaining the GNU/Linux. The same goes for anyone that writes freeware code. It is your intellectual "property," and you want people to call it what it is meant to be called.

While a stretch, I think the same can be said of people that take offense to being called Mister after spending eight to twelve years of their life to be called Doctor. In a casual setting one might let something like that pass, in a professional setting, I highly doubt such a reference would be acceptable.

Do you confuse freeware with free software?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-....html#Freeware

BTW, it is a controversy and many agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Lin...ng_controversy

Yes I do confuse it, but it does not matter to me. If I don't have to pay for it (legally) and I don't try to sell CDs with of it, I probably will not educate myself to know the difference.

The only time I read an agreement for software is when I recommend it for my neighbor that runs a "commercial" DJ business.

"For Free" is a better read at educating myself.

I USE VISTA HUR HUR

man, what a buncha nerds ;)

Which is fine. You're interested in the "as-in-beer" freeness of Free Software. In that respect, it's indistinguishable from Freeware. I suspect that most interaction with Open Source is by "as-in-beer" folks, whereas the "as-in-speech" folks are the noisiest about things like naming controversies.

We are noisy because the open source people has confused people.