Linux. What makes it GNU?

>don't forget that Linux is still using the GNU GPL.
So we name operating systems based on the license they're under now?

>To answer your question OP, it could be a lot of things
I want a precise definition.
>but it's up to the distro vendor really.
So if author calls it, say, "Gentoo Linux" it's just Linux?

>Both musl and busybox were developed for GNU compatibility.
What?
>So while they aren't technically GNU it may be useful to refer to them as being GNU-related.
They are literally unrelated projects. Are you taking a piss?

>GNU came before Linux and Linux probably would not have even been possible without it
That seems extremely unlikely. Look at Hurd. If GNU is the reason for success of the kernel, it would have been on the top.
>don'tet that Linux is still using the GNU GPL.
So?

>I want a precise definition.
I know it's convenient for you to reduce complex ideas down into simple ones but life is not that easy.
>So if author calls it, say, "Gentoo Linux" it's just Linux?
No, because Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
>They are literally unrelated projects.
Except they aren't, they were literally made for the Linux kernel with the goal of GNU compatibility. If you want something that has nothing to do with GNU then go use BSD, it's there.
>That seems extremely unlikely. Look at Hurd. If GNU is the reason for success of the kernel, it would have been on the top.
Hurd didn't fail because Linux was good, it failed because Hurd was badly designed.

No, you just need to know your place.

>No, you just need to know your place.
So in other words you have no real argument? Linus Torvalds still actively maintains the kernel, meanwhile RMS has done fuckall in the past decade other than write on his GNU/Blog and tell people that the OS they use is actually something else. The only reason this is even a debate in the first place was the massive fucking failure that is GNU/Hurd.

Linus doesn't write any code these days either, he just yells at people all day and delegates stuff to gregkh. Which is actually pretty similar to what RMS does all day which is yell at people all day and delegate stuff to johns.

>I know it's convenient for you to reduce complex ideas down into simple ones
Dont lie. I'm asking for an actual definition and specification. Set of utilities that warrant an addition to the name is not a "complex idea".

>No, because Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
Linux distribution, however, is an OS. So I ask again. If developer calls his OS, say, "Void Linux", it's just Linux, correct?

>Except they aren't, they were **literally made** for the Linux kernel **with the goal of GNU compatibility**.
Id like to see a citation for that.

>If you want something that has nothing to do with GNU then go use BSD, it's there.
Unrelated, not Linux.

>Hurd didn't fail because Linux was good, it failed because Hurd was badly designed.
Like most of other GNU/software. Point stands, success of Linux can hardly be attributed to the GNU/bloat.

*test post from my busybox/android phone*

This was already given, let me post it again for you
>GNU is a Unix-like operating system. That means it is a collection of many programs: applications, libraries, developer tools, even games.

>Void Linux
I don't know what that particular distribution should be called. Based on that definition does it include GNU? Why should it even be called Linux? You be the judge.

>Id like to see a citation for that.
Go read the documentation of these packages and see for yourself.

>Point stands, success of Linux can hardly be attributed to the GNU/bloat.
Yes, that must have been why in 1992 Linus chose to use the GCC compiler as a base, chose to use GNU as his base system, chose to use the GNU GPL, etc...

>GNU is a Unix-like operating system. That means it is a collection of many programs: applications, libraries, developer tools, even games.
Which ones exactly. Give me an explicit list of software makes distribution GNU/Linux.
What you posted is too vague. Probably on purpose.

>I don't know what that particular distribution should be called. Based on that definition does it include GNU?
You haven't defined what makes GNU.
>Why should it even be called Linux?
It is a Linux distribution, as it is based around Linux Kernel.
>You the judge.
In that case, yes, just like "Gentoo Linux" is just Linux.

>Go read the documentation of these packages and see for yourself.
In other words, you have nothing to back your words up. Good to hear.

>Yes, that must have been why in 1992 Linus chose to use the GCC compiler as a base
Base to what? It's a compiler.
> to use GNU as his base system
He had his reasons. For all we know, he simply grabbed the first available package to showcase the kernel.
Nowadays Linux distributions might not even include coreutils in base system.
>chose to use the GNU GPL, etc...
Licences now reflect code?

K

duckduckgo.com/?q=list of gnu software

>It is a Linux distribution, as it is based around Linux Kernel.
Yes, and like 1000 other packages too which are not Linux, some of them might even be GNU.

>In other words, you have nothing to back your words up.
I'm not feeding shit to you, I can't help you if you aren't willing to learn and do research yourself and you just believe whatever the Linux foundation tells you.

>Licences now reflect code?
Yes, they do. If you write code and share it with others, you will inevitably run into politics.

>Nowadays Linux distributions might not even include coreutils in base system.
Good for them. Linux is the kernel, not the base system.

Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Many users do not understand the difference between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call “Linux”. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't help people understand. These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a bit of help.
Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they have generally heard the whole system called “Linux” as well, they often envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system after the kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished writing Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software to go with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most everything necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available.
What they found was no accident—it was the not-quite-complete GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. In the The GNU Manifesto we set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Linux was started, GNU was almost finished.

Most free software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job. For example, Linus Torvalds set out to write a Unix-like kernel (Linux); Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (the X Window System). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their “Linux distribution”, GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. (The proportions in 2008 are similar: in the “main” repository of gNewSense, Linux is 1.5% and GNU packages are 15%.) So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be “GNU”.
But that is not the deepest way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did that. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project set out to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.

Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit for their software. But the reason it is an integrated system—and not just a collection of useful programs—is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting (1) components because you can't have a system without them. Some of our system components, the programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we wrote many components that are not tools (2). We even developed a chess game, GNU Chess, because a complete system needs games too.
By the early 90s we had put together the whole system aside from the kernel. We had also started a kernel, the GNU Hurd, which runs on top of Mach. Developing this kernel has been a lot harder than we expected; the GNU Hurd started working reliably in 2001, but it is a long way from being ready for people to use in general.
Fortunately, we didn't have to wait for the Hurd, because of Linux. Once Torvalds freed Linux in 1992, it fit into the last major gap in the GNU system. People could then combine Linux with the GNU system to make a complete free system: a Linux-based version of the GNU system; the GNU/Linux system, for short.

uhhh durr yeah it was basically finished before LInus even started except for the most important part that does most of the work of the system

Making them work well together was not a trivial job. Some GNU components(3) needed substantial change to work with Linux. Integrating a complete system as a distribution that would work “out of the box” was a big job, too. It required addressing the issue of how to install and boot the system—a problem we had not tackled, because we hadn't yet reached that point. Thus, the people who developed the various system distributions did a lot of essential work. But it was work that, in the nature of things, was surely going to be done by someone.
The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU system. The FSF funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU C library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest GNU/Linux systems use the current library release with no changes. The FSF also funded an early stage of the development of Debian GNU/Linux.
Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called “distros”). Most of them include non-free software—their developers follow the philosophy associated with Linux rather than that of GNU. But there are also completely free GNU/Linux distros. The FSF supports computer facilities for two of these distributions, Ututo and gNewSense.
Making a free GNU/Linux distribution is not just a matter of eliminating various non-free programs. Nowadays, the usual version of Linux contains non-free programs too. These programs are intended to be loaded into I/O devices when the system starts, and they are included, as long series of numbers, in the "source code" of Linux. Thus, maintaining free GNU/Linux distributions now entails maintaining a free version of Linux too.

Whether you use GNU/Linux or not, please don't confuse the public by using the name “Linux” ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is basically the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about this combination, please call it “GNU/Linux”.
If you want to make a link on “GNU/Linux” for further reference, this page and gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html are good choices. If you mention Linux, the kernel, and want to add a link for further reference, foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Linux is a good URL to use.
Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.

>gnu-males cry for not getting all the attention like chad Linux has
Is GNU/Linux the new forced maymay?

>Is GNU/Linux the new forced maymay?
The interjection is as old as this board

*GayNU Males

Beta GNU Males vs Alpha Chad Linux

Note that the term "virgin" was not used because that's a given for both parties.

>packages = kernels
just fuck off niggermonkey keep sucking stallmans cock

Attached: 1525020000096.jpg (1024x595, 74K)

i feel that its the GPL copyleft licence that makes it "spiritually GNU, not the packages themselves

According to RMS it doesn't matter if using musl, bosybox, compiling everything with clang+llvm and having no GNU component on top of Linux kernel. You still should call it GNU/Linux just from respect, tradition or something. I'm not even joking.

Wait, so any GNU software transforms Linux distribution into GHU/Linux distribution? Are you serious?
>Not feeding you
It looks like you actually have nothing to back it up, as shown even by your ddg search query, since there is nothing that shows which software makes distribution into gnu.

>Linux is not an operating system unto itself
Linux distribution is an operating system.

>free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
List explicitly, which components are required for Linux distribution to become GNU/Linux distribution.
Why is this so hard for you, guys? You don't actually know and just repeat one meme from Stallmann?

>Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system
Define what makes GNU OS. For example, I'm not using any GNU OS, I'm using Linux distribution (which is an OS) that includes some components that are part of the GNU project.

>GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code
Hahahaha, that is easily explained by picrel. Also, this explains picrel too.
>Same in gNewSence
So, in another distribution it's a lot less?

Attached: 1526884151594-g.png (1126x10000, 1.45M)

>makes it "spiritually GNU
But that's bullshit. GPL is not the only licence there is. Not even the only copyist and definitely not the only one used in any common distribution.

I have a very strong negative opinion about appropriating work and trying to mislabel the product of people who work on it. If the author calls his/her OS " Linux", it's not GNU/Linux, it's a Linux distribution.

Therefore I really want to see why all these people call it that. What components explicitly. Also, how is GNU an OS without kernel?

>According to RMS it doesn't matter
I'm not surprised.
>if using musl, bosybox, compiling everything with clang+llvm and having no GNU component on top of Linux kernel. You still should call it GNU/Linux just from respect, tradition or something.
Respect for what? He has nothing to do with it whatsoever at that point. If he wants recognition for an OS, he can finish HURD and actually package complete and working GNU OS.
>I'm not even joking.

>It looks like you actually have nothing to back it up, as shown even by your ddg search query, since there is nothing that shows which software makes distribution into gnu.
GNU is an operating system which includes many packages. It's not my fault you can't read the list of packages, even if I were to post them here you still would make some excuse as to why they don't count. So fuck off.

>List explicitly, which components are required for Linux distribution to become GNU/Linux distribution.
No. You list explicitly what you think makes it required for an operating system that includes 1000s of packages to only be named after one of them (the kernel).