Interviewer: “Some people advocate it should be described as GNU/Linux. I mean what’s your thought on that? Is that justified?”
Linus Torvalds: “Well, I think it’s justified, but it’s justified if you actually make a GNU distribution on Linux. The same way that I think Red Hat Linux is fine, or SuSE Linux, or Debian Linux, uh, because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing. But calling Linux in general, GNU/Linux I think is just, ridiculous”
Linus is right
>Fat jew neckbeard claims credit for what was developed near singlehandedly by a hardworking white man just because he created a C compiler
yeah, stallman's a cunt, we should change the sticky with linus
Virgin GNU vs. Chad Linux when
Linus does the bidding of the US intelligence agencies.
Richard Stallman is a unicorn's horn in their side. That's why they've tried to kill him twice, and that the reason he's got to keep moving.
>they've tried to kill him twice
Source pls. Cia is our greatest ally.
Richard 'Mossad' Stallman's allegiance lies with the service and the B'nai B'rith and nobody else.
cia niggers aside, Linus > Stallman
Guys, while a lot of this might be complete autism, I personally think that in this day and age, calling it GNU/Linux actually has some real meaning. There is this little thing called Android, and it uses the Linux kernel, but the rest of the components are non-GNU. Some are even proprietary! However, I have seen normies make the dangerously misleading claim that "Android is Linux!" It technically is, as it uses the Linux Kernel, but it shares nothing else with GNU/Linux distros, particularly their respect for your freedoms.
Because of this, we should say GNU/Linux, so as not to confuse it with the botnet that is Android, or other such projects. By saying GNU/Linux, we make it clear that yes, we are using Linux, but we are also using Free Software.
Android is Linux.
How do I install KDE on it?
I kinda agree, it's like the difference between open source, and free software.
>if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing. But calling Linux in general, GNU/Linux I think is just, ridiculous”
I see, and which linux distributions out there dont make heavy use of GNU code?
to these saying AMD did shit in the past, yeah you're right, yet the Ryzen processors are pretty good
Alpine aaaand... that's pretty much it.
shit wrong thread fuck me
>I've seen people making this clear truthful statement
>this is problematic because this does not push my agenda
I'm sticking with Linus on this.
Here's your reply.
Define "heavy use of gnu code"
Debian.
GNU hasn't been able to shit out a kernel of their own in 30+ years, despite downplaying its role.
rms and the FSF deserve praise for having popularized the free software movement, but "GNU/Linux" is a lot more Linux than GNU.
wait does he mean gnu/linux as in a disto or Linux™ ? because im pretty sure stallman makes this objection when calling a distro - linux
not the kernel
They haven't been "able to" because they haven't been trying to. We have Linux-libre now, so investing into HURD at this point would be stupid. HURD would have had more success if the Linux kernel was not created or did not get popular
Hello, Richard.
>we can, we just don't want to! we're fine the way it is! please stop saying linux without gnu! please
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. 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.
he's right you dumb asses where do you think the people contributing to linux would have go if it didn't exist? the only issue would have been richard's firm (and rightfully so) stance on non free parts in this hypothetical hurd which would have been solved by the distros with upstream patches from those who disagree
Don't believe me? consider what LINUS HIMSELF said back in 1991
>I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
>I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got minix.
Or what Andrew S. Tanenbaum said in 1992
>But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a modern "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.
Welp, he said something 30 years ago, I guess that invalidates everything that happened afterwards.
>where do you think the people contributing to linux would have go if it didn't exist?
*BSD, for example. Maybe even something cool like BeOS.
>the only issue would have been richard's
Ego. But seriously, Hurd is a microkernel, while Linux is monolithic. Also, this shit is still under "development". It's just they can't actually make it any good and they know it. Instead they leech onto Linux.
>Switching subject.
Nice.
Also, do you have anything more recent than a phrase from 27 years ago? Oh, right, the interview from OP, where Linus says it's not gnu.
>waaah the quote is old!!
This was to disprove, you know, the posts I was actually replying to. Which were about how I was supposedly wrong that Hurd was going to succeed had Linux not come around. I was not the one who "switched subjects". You were. And yet somehow you seem to think that my post was in response to the OP, and only the OP.
Just because Linus said hurd was going to succeed 30 years ago does not mean hurd was going to succeed, and it doesn't even mean Linux thought hurd was going to succeed - he could have said it to appear polite to the audience. Linux shared his thoughts on hurd - as well as on any other microkernel - he said microkernels are too difficult to develop for and too inefficient with frequent context switches - and for that reason they are destined to fail.
ah but of course, as I have seen in numerous other occasions, misdirection and playing dumb are common tactics of those who have been completely disproven and don't want to admit it.
>Ego
You didn't disprove nothing. Hurd is a failure and some 30 year old quotes hardly change its status.
Well apparently Google doesn't think so.
>Hurd was going to succeed
>had Linux not come around
Pathetic excuse.
But a nice attempt at derailing the thread.
>You didn't disprove nothing.
which means I disproved something
>Hurd is a failure
Indeed. Never did I say that it wasn't. I have been merely clarifying the reason why.
>for specific devices
You have clarified your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, and I really hope you don't consider that those quotes transform your opinion into anything grater that just that, an opinion.
Which will include Smartphones and laptops apparently. Two device categories that historically and to this very day lack in performance compared to larger, more stationary computers like workstations and servers. And yet Fuchsia will run fine on them. Strange, isn't it? I could've sworn that microkernels were impossible because of how bad the performance was. Maybe, just maybe, microkernels have improved in our post-L4 world.
>will
Fine then. We can agree to disagree on this one. Have a wonderful day, you glorious user!
>Maybe, just maybe, microkernels have improved in our post-L4 world.
Not Hurd, apparently.
Indeed. Hurd still uses Mach.
Linux > GNU/Linux
it just sounds better
Hey how do I install XFCE on my Android phone?
Wait, I can't? I though Android was Linux?!?
>lack in performance
some say it's because of google services and such
So google services are the reason why Laptops and phones are weaker than workstations and servers?
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. 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.
>comparing laptops to servers
lul
XFCE requires X.
And see, that's the ultimate point. Android is """Linux""" as it uses the Linux kernel, but it's not "Linux", as it is completely separate from the Free as in Freedom OS we all know and love.
Perhaps GNU/Linux is a bit of a cumbersome name, but I do feel that there needs to be a stronger naming distinction between such things, and so far, GNU/Linux does the best job of that.
You can't.
It is Linux, but heavily modified and restricted.
Well, you actually can, but it's probably not what you have in mind.
Yes I am. Reread
I can install XFCE on Alpine and Void Musl. This ability has nothing to do with some gnu apps.
>replying to GNU copypasta
are you ok
Yes I am quite fine. How about you?
If you were fine, you would not be responding to the most reposted copypasta on Jow Forums. Seek help now.
>ya fuckyeah™ will run on powerlet devices
not really
hey! it was posted in perfect context this time
Perhaps I should seek help sometime, although for reasons unrelated to copypastas. Regardless, my point still stands.
what is "ya fuckyeah"? I duckduckgo'd it, and can't seem to find what you're referring to.
>Hey how do I install XFCE on my Android phone?
>Wait, I can't? I though Android was GNU/Linux?!?
No one ever said android is a GNU/Linux Os, so this is probably the most out of context GNU copypasta I've seen in weeks.
Your point does not stand. XFCE requires a bunch of libraries. build them, get X working on android and you can use XFCE.
ya is yes
fuckyeah is fuschia
>Wait, I can't? I though Android was Linux?!?
why are you quoting wrong
I'm quoting
oh so you're saying that Fuchsia will not work on low power devices?
What makes you think that?
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.
see:
you're misquoting
no im saying you're just saying it will work on low power devices
Lingus is right.