Stop calling the Linux operating system “Android"

/thread

I can't wait until Google finishes Zircon/Fuchsia so we all move to that on laptop, desktop and smartphone nad we can get read of these annoying smug freetards

Stop calling the Gnome DE GNOME.
Stop calling the Xfce DE XFCE.
Stop calling the Tor project TOR.
Stop calling the UNIX operating system UNIX.
Stop calling GNU or Linux Unix or UNIX.

I am confused now

Attached: rms-04.jpg (266x399, 16K)

Unix* even autocomplete is dumb.

how do you install linux in android?

step 1: do nothing
step 2: enjoy linux

>how do you install linux in android?
I wish I knew how to update.
Fucking Google uses EOL kernels.

Attached: Screenshot_20180526-172651.png (1920x1080, 244K)

Install NT/GNU/Windows

Attached: wsl.png (800x652, 103K)

It's gonna flop worse than Google+.

Linus-kun looks so delicious in this pic, like a muffin ^^

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.

Attached: 1522289308226.jpg (770x578, 31K)

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:

Attached: 1516199085751.jpg (970x589, 31K)

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.

Attached: 1515660170906.jpg (640x424, 29K)

>not installing debian for windows
>installing botninux
I've given up on Jow Forums.

Attached: giving up.png (517x485, 342K)

i wonder if latest mainline with android drivers enabled in config would work fine

Android is not Linux, it's a part of the Google botnet.

I'd just like to interject for a moment.

What you’re referring to as Android,
is in fact, GNU/Linux/Android

It's GNU/Linux/Java/Android

>Linux alone
Not really. You have to use busybox or toybox or even another utils suite such as Heirloom. And all of them are lacking compared to GNU coreutils.

>XFree86
Is this pasta from 90s or what?

Whether they're "lacking" or not isn't really the point, now is it?

Attached: 1518996252506.jpg (750x563, 42K)

>Stop calling
k

Attached: 1525342615329.png (10x8, 230)

Did you just assume how i call the "Android"?

It isn't. That's why I put it last. Main point is a userland has to be used or else a kernel does nothing therefore it cannot be used in any applications alone.

Well here's my main point, which is that GNU isn't necessarily necessary, and that tacking on labels-slash-labels-slash-Linux is, well, tacky and stupid. I need air to breathe but I don't refer to my lungs as Air/Lungs. I can't run my computer without electricity, but I don't refer to it as a fizzybuzzelectromagic/Computer.

Just call it GNU. All the Linux snowflaking is just confusing to everyone. Nobody calls Android Linux, Windows NT or macOS XNU either. The whole crap just emerged because thinking about freedom makes some people uneasy - approving this faggoty is stupid if you value the free software community.

>Nobody calls Android Linux, Windows NT or macOS XNU either.
Right, people use official names given by authors. Therefore you should just use this. For example, "gentoo Linux", "void Linux" and "alpine Linux"

>Just call it GNU
Are you actually this stupid?

>that GNU isn't necessarily necessary
For embedded systems that aren't meant to be actually used, sure.

>For embedded systems that aren't meant to be actually used
You can use the same logic for Linux in general.

Richard Stallman called the operating system GNU in 1983, when Linus kernel wasn't even a wet thought. Use the name the autor told you how to call it.

So basically what you're implying is that if it can't a fully-featured desktop environment and whatnot ... it doesn't ... count?

That's right. Linux on its own isn't usable, bootable, or gives you anything to operate a system.

you can call your router os whatever you want, it's obviously not a gnu system (also off topic since the existence of embedded systems doesn't magically turn a kernel into a complete system)

And a car isn't usable without the fucking engine...

That's also right.

Let's actually think logically. We need a universal name for Linux distributions. Let's look at the names.
Are there distros that don't have "GNU" in the name? Sure, lots.
Are there any distros with only "GNU" in the name? I don't think so.
Are there any distros with only "Linux" in the name? Of course.
Therefore it is reasonable to generally refer to distros as "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux". I don't think there is a single person on Earth that will be confused by that name. Well, maybe Stallman.

>Richard Stallman called the operating system GNU in 1983
IBM called I SYS an OS in 1950s, should we use that too?
Distro maintainers give their OSes a name. If you don't want to use it that's your problem ignorance.

That's NOT
the POINT...
are u fkcing kiddne me
What do all these GUHNOO PLUS LOONIX and embedded shitfuckery have in COMMON? in C O M M O N?
L ER RRR NERXXXXX
Linux is the universal constant uniting these things, just CALL IT FUCKING LINUX. It's comfortable and easy to say

Excuse me, but what you're referring to as Linux is in fact just your chosen distro running on the I SYS/GNU/Linux system.

Linux isn't necessary or sufficient to run GNU. Linux isn't necessary, because the kernel can be replaced. HURD does work to some extent and we can expect it and other alternatives to work better in the future. Naming the system after a replaceable module doesn't make sense. Linux isn't sufficient to run a GNU system either. A working system requires a working bootloader, init system, and shell as well. The system should be called GNU. GNU/Linux is Stallman trying to compromise.

>Let's actually think logically.
no fuck you,

GNL, GNU is Not Linux

>HURD does work
>to some extent
Hahahahahaha.
>bootloader
Linux can load itself with UEFI.

>says the man that insists GNU should be called Linux
Nice double standards there Linus

Wow, it sounds like none of it's necessary, I guess we just shouldn't call it anything.

Attached: 1505555269223.png (300x250, 18K)

There's no GNU on Android, not even glibc
Some GNU tools have been ported to Android, but they're an extreme minority and usually installed by the end user
It's a vendor problem, they won't release drivers for anything but the LTS 3.16 kernel, sometimes older ones and sometimes a bit newer ones
GNU Guix doesn't have Linux anywhere in the name

HURD does work.Laughing doesn't change that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_GNU/Hurd

We could call it GNU, since that was the original name of the project and the name came from people who wrote the majority of software and tooling.

Richard Stallman never completed his operating system, as it currently lacks a stable kernel. Linus first revealed Linux as a replacement for Minix, another operating system. Just because other people ported some of your code to their operating system doesn't mean its yours. Remember its Mac OS not Mac/BSD OS.

>GNU/Linux
>GNU/L
>GNUL
>LUNG
wheeeez

According to wikipedia
>GNU Guix(/ɡiːks/[2]) is apackage manager
Not a Linux distribution.

>Hurd does work
So does haiku. What does this change? It has no support and even authors don't use it.
Linux, on the contrary, is very much used by a lot of people.

Linus Torvalds never completed his operating system, as it currently lacks a boot loader, init system, shell, desktop environment, and cannot self host. Richard Stallman first revealed GNU as a libre operating system. Just because other people ported your kernel to support their operating system doesn't mean its yours. Remember it's GNU, not GNU/Linux or Linux.

Attached: morally_suspect.png (220x298, 122K)

>What does this change?
It proves that Linux is not necessary to run the GNU operating system.

>Hurd will work better in the future

lol, if anything it will just keep falling further behind, just like all the hipster OSes

Hurd is a kernel, not an OS. Linux was also a hipster kernel.

>It proves that Linux is not necessary to run the GNU operating system.
Who says otherwise?
This does not change a thing.

Also, I bet you can't explicitly define what software makes GNU

/thread

We're not talking about "GUH NOO operating systems", god it hurts my face just to say it, "GGGUUUHHH NNNOOOOOO", jesus christ, we're talking about LINUX operating systems, that run on LINUX, whether it be Ubongo or my fucking calculator or whatever. At all of these operating systems' core ... is LINUX. You can have Linux without GNU, you can't do shit with GNU without a fucking kernel, so which is REALLY more important? How does it not make more sense to just call it fucking LINUX?

>This does not change a thing.
It means that you can have a "Linux" system without "Linux". That implies the name "Linux" is a misnomer for GNU.

>I bet you can't explicitly define what software makes GNU
That would be quite difficult since so much software is part of GNU. The following are official GNU projects, but there are many other software projects that have either been started, licensed, or relicensed due to the works of the FSF. gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html

The GNU project didn't port the Linux kernel. Most of GNU software was ported to Linux without the involvement of GNU devs. The GNU project originally called Linux a free Unix system until it started gaining popularity, in which moment (((they))) started complaining about the name. These are all facts that any GNU tard ignores, and they just parrot POSIX definitions because its the only way their argument has a leg to stand on. But as common sense dictates, using trinkets of other people's work doesn't give them any authorship rights over your work. That's why we don't call Aristotle's works "Aristotelo-Platonic", call Islam a different religion, and don't call ChromeOS a Gentoo distribution.

>You can have Linux without GNU, you can't do shit with GNU without a fucking kernel, so which is REALLY more important?
This is wrong. As I have already pointed out, there is at least one working alternative kernel.

WE'RE NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT OTHER KERNELS im done

>It means that you can have a "Linux" system without "Linux".
How?
>The following are official GNU projects
Which make a GNU OS?

Nobody has claimed authorship over Linux. The correct name is still GNU.

No it isn't

Attached: 1520544810471.jpg (442x293, 10K)

>How?
By replacing the kernel, like with Debian's Hurd fork.

>Which make a GNU OS?
In part. The GNU project is supported by volunteers who may not ask for or desire official GNU support for a number of reasons. It is my opinion that software projects that assign their copyright to the FSF can be considered part of the GNU project.

Yes it is. Linux is neither necessary or sufficient to run GNU. You can have GNU without Linux. You need software besides Linux to run GNU. Linux is not necessary or sufficient to run GNU.

>By replacing the kernel, like with Debian's Hurd fork.
And how would that make it a Linux distribution, again?

>In part. Bla Bla Bla.
Once again. Which packages make the GNU OS. List them.

I like you.

Everyone is referring specifically to the clunky-ass "GNU/Linux" name, which literally pains me to try and say with the GNU/ tacked on, HOW are you not getting this?

>Linux is not necessary or sufficient to run GNU.
And how exactly does this make a Linux distribution anything else?

Alpine Linux wants a word with (You)

>And how would that make it a Linux distribution, again?
It would not. You would use the same name you would use for Debian with the Linux kernel. You would call it GNU or just Debian.

>Once again. Which packages make the GNU OS. List them.
I don't have a list of packages for you. You can try the following.
apt list --installed

I haven't told anyone to call it GNU/Linux. I've told people to call it GNU, because that is the correct name.

This is some high-level trolling right here.

Attached: 1512368497331.jpg (806x938, 337K)

I hope this thread is lesson enough to show that commies simply aren't logical, reasonable beings and the only way to treat them is to let them eventually self-destruct.

Alpine Linux is not a fork of Linux (Like Linux Libre). Calling Alpine Linux is therefore pretty dumb. Granted it's not a GNU system either, but what you call that system is pretty irrelevant to this topic anyway since we're talking about a GNU variant using Linux (or short: GNU) that people erroneously call "Linux" to an extend that they even call the WSL "Linux".

>Stop calling the Linux operating system “Android".
stop calling the Linux kernel, operating system.

You can pick and choose which parts of GNU you want to run, up to the point where no GNU is on your system. Which means the Linux OS doesn't need GNU to work. Therefore, the "GNU/" is unjustified in the Linux name.

It's NOT irrelevant, it's PRECISELY THE POINT.

Guys. When in doubt, just ask the system.

uname -o
>on Android
prints Android
>on GNU/Linux
prints GNU/Linux

Easy.

Naming things after an optional subcomponent is dumb. Calling a pie 'apple' because it has apples in it is wrong Calling a pie 'apple pie' because it may have apples in it is wrong.

Containing apples does not make something a pie. Being a pie does not make something contain apples.
Containing Linux does not make something GNU. Being GNU does not make something contain Linux.

You can call a pie with apples 'apple pie', the same way you can call GNU with Linux 'GNU/Linux', but you can also call an apple pie 'pie' the same way you can call GNU with Linux 'GNU'.

If the subcomponent isn't necessary of sufficient then it doesn't make sense to name the whole system after it.

Attached: neet4.png (620x640, 260K)

You can also remove Linux.

>Call both systems GNU
>try to install software for GNU on GNU
>can't because its the wrong GNU
compared to
>Call them Linux and GNU
>try to install Linux software on GNU
>don't do it because I recognize they're different systems
If the GNU project wants to be taken seriously they should just hurry up and release the full version of their OS, instead of piggybacking on other people's projects.

More like remove GNU from Linux

user... Linux is not the subcomponent... It is the crust ... holding the apples ... A lot of apples, it can barely contain all the fucking apples, but it is the crust...

>open source people call it linux, excluding credit to rms and the free software community
>free software people don't want to be the same assholes so they say GNU/Linux
>open source people: REEEEE, stallman is stealing credit!!
Being friendly was a mistake.

first of, this secondly, Linux is not only the kernel, it is also commonly used as a reference for "the Linux operating System, with or without additional packages"
Does a fridge need GNU? no, it runs Linux as OS.
Also, before any GNUfags start to sperg out about the second point; additional packages are for example Xorg, or also GNU, neither of which are needed for Linux to run.

>You would use the same name you would use for Debian with the Linux kernel.
Unlikely. Since Hurd or any other such projects brings problems and restrictions in functionality, it will be clearly indicated.

>I don't have a list of packages for you.
Of course you don't. Because you have no idea what actually makes a GNU OS. It's not in the interest of the GNU project to make it clear.

>Alpine Linux is not a fork of Linux (Like Linux Libre).
That's why it's not "Linux Alpine" but "Alpine Linux", which is an OS, just like any other Linux distribution.
>Calling Alpine Linux is therefore pretty dumb.
Why? It's the convention for naming Linux distributions.
>what you call that system is pretty irrelevant to this topic
What you call a Linux distribution is irrelevant how?

>Calling a pie 'apple' because it has apples in it is wrong
But calling it "apple pie" is correct, even though it has lots of other components. Because it always has apples. Otherwise it's not an apple pie.
Same exact way calling it "Linux distribution". It always includes Linux, since otherwise it's not a Linux distribution.