Linux naming controversy

I am reading up on this slap fight, and am curious why anyone would fall for this middle school tier shit flinging by Stallman. Those who refer to Linux as gnu/Linux, I have a few questions

Why is gnu before Linux? Isn't Linux inherently more low level? This seems to intentionally make Linux look like an add on to gnu, or worse a gnu package outright.

What is an acceptable use case for gnu/Linux? For general systems that use the Linux kernel, it seems really dumb to assume that they use gnu userland, c libs, etc. So in that use case it's not appropriate. The next use case is distributions, and I feel like it is the distribution creator to decide that. For instance, Ubuntu isnt even called Linux at all, it's just "Ubuntu". Or is that terrible ethically?

This whole thing seems like a lame popularity contest from the fsf and an ugly one too. Apologies if I'm beating a dead horse here, but it just seems that this convention is obviously flawed.

Attached: 220px-Tux.png (220x261, 39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
gnu.org
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>more low level
>requires gnu to compile

I don't see what the compilation of it has to do with anything, and the fact that it requires gnu is the only place Stallman has a foothold at all. We might as well call it the "C kernel" since the tools to create the system are so important to it right? Bizarre argument

No one's pushing for GNU/Linux apart from dedicated trolls here.

(((stallman)))

It's kind a hard thing to claim "I was being ironic" about. By posting it all the time, you do nothing but give it more and more credibility. That's why I kind of doubt that people are spamming it as a joke.

Go, open up LFS manual and configure and compile the shit. Then you will understand that GNU toolset is huge compared to Linux kernel.

>le 'more lines of code = more important'

Attached: 1504265507544.png (1200x796, 596K)

Would you say Android is Linux? It uses the Linux kernel. Would you say Ubuntu is the same as Android? How would you differentiate these two? It doesn't matter if you place GNU before Linux or after. There needs to be something to differentiate the two. I wouldn't even consider ChomeOS to be GNU/Linux despite being based on Gentoo.

No, it means that Linux kernel is smaller part compared to gcc, binutils, etc. I'm not saying it's less important, I'm not saying both are not bloated as fuck. Btw, the person who uses "more lines of code = better" is Torvalds himself, so you are basically shooting yourself to your own leg.

Yes I would. And if I wanted to reference only desktop Linux systems I would say that.

Guise, I was wondering if someone could help me manage getting started with Lua/Wireshark?

BSD is more similar to GNU/Linux than Android. Would you call BSD Linux too?

No because BSD doesn't use Linux

Why are you asking these questions that have obvious answers? I'm sure gnu/Linux has a use case but it's not anywhere near a drop in replacement for "Linux". I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the time people say Linux that "gnu/Linux" is not an acceptable replacement.

I don't know btw what takes so long time to get Hurd rolling. How the development of Hurd looks like. Is there any?

The only important contribution of GNU is the toolchain (gcc, glibc, etc.)
But you don't say LLVM/OpenBSD or GNU/X Window/Linux.

Stallman is retarded for wanting people to recognize his compiler.

You have to admit though that gcc/g++ is widely used though, not just in linux.

>We might as well call it the "C kernel" since the tools to create the system are so important to it right? Bizarre argument
We might as well just call it "computer kernel" or just "kernel", and call the whole os "GNU/kernel" to properly signify that the os is GNU with a kernel added, thus GNU + kernel

I don't have to use X Window, but I DO have to use GNU, e.g. the GNU core utilities. There is simply no replacement for it.

Welcome to Jow Forums, newfag.
This meme is Jow Forums's most successful, as in a lot of unironic ppl seriously using the gnu prefix. It's our way to either detect reddit-tier tryhards, or troll ourselfs.
Watch as the thread unfolds true autism levels and beyond.
>inb4 linux is a kernel
>inb4 slave analogies
>inb4 RMSpasta

>what are clang and musl

This fag is a newbie
Do me a favor sir
... GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY BOARD!!!!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

I always write GNU/Linux, even in job applications, and nobody has a problem with it, except autists on Jow Forums.

i don't have a problem with it, i have a problem with the reasoning.
Even tough i'd support fsf's views on many things, i dislike the MUH CREDITZ shit they're pulling.

All questions answered here: gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

You shouldn't refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. The name of the kernel Linux is just right,l - however the combination of the GNU system with Linux is called GNU/Linux.

If your words don't reflect your knowledge, you don't teach others. Most people who have heard of the GNU/Linux system think it is “Linux”, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that it was intended to be “open source”. If you don't tell them, who will?

There is no "GNU" system.
There is software from the FSF, software from X, software from the BSDs, software from independent developers, and all of that can make a Linux distribution.

gnu.org it's right here.

Can someone explain to me why the FSF keeps referring to GNU as an operating system, even though they also claim the following:
>An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.
>The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system—the program that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other programs.

How can you have an operating system without a kernel? GNU is not an operating system

GNU has been used with many kernels; their own, Hurd, Linux-libre, kFreeBSD, etc - but that doesn't matter in the same way systems that aren't GNU like Android, Windows or macOS don't matter. The combination of GNU with Linux is what we're using and what makes it GNU/Linux.

>why anyone would fall for this middle school tier shit flinging by Stallman
i don't know, why would anyone fall for linus and his autistic insisting that a bunch of unrelated userland apps, tools, libraries, compilers, etc should be called "Linux" just because he likes to hear the sound of his own name
>Why is gnu before Linux? Isn't Linux inherently more low level? This seems to intentionally make Linux look like an add on to gnu
the kernel was an addon to GNU because GNU existed first
>What is an acceptable use case for gnu/Linux?
call it GNU if it includes GNU
>This whole thing seems like a lame popularity contest from the fsf and an ugly one too
fsf is an advocacy group, their mission is to promote free software and gnu, if you don't care about that then go use windows

/thread

Attached: 1521476235051.jpg (640x755, 91K)

It's a meme you dip

>if you don't care about that then go use windows
But I thought Linux... or GNU/Linux if you insist... was supposed to be an operating system that people actually use? Like, even companies use it? Heck, even Microsoft uses Linux. Why doesn't Microsoft just use Windows?

>Why doesn't Microsoft just use Windows?
Because Windows is garbage.

Why not call it UNIX + knockoff to acknowledge that it's a modified proprietary operating system and Richard Stallman is a thief?