Linux is a kernel

macOS is here to save you from that memeOS that is known as Systemd+Linux masturbating hobo edition.

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?

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd system made useful by the systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd system, developed by the systemd 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 systemd operating system: the whole system is basically systemd with Linux added, or systemd/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of systemd/Linux.

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.

(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.

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.

thank you OP

reminding all of the plebs inhere what Linux is. Well done

Attached: Slow_clap.jpg (500x384, 37K)

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:

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.

See , and don't ignore it this time.

Linux is a kernel, yes. On top of that it's also the commonly used umbrella term for everything that uses that specific kernel. People don't actually care about the exact specifics of your kernel, init system and coreutils. They just want to know if it's that other thing which isn't Windows or Mac(OS). Yes, even MacOS is not generally called MacOS because just "Mac" is usually enough to give a clue about your system. Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 are also pretty different from each other but people often just say "Windows" and start being more specific if requested. If you're writing a scientific paper you might want to use the specific terms, not layman terms. Otherwise it doesn't matter as you will notice after interacting with people.

autism

youtube.com/watch?v=q8Qftb2O--Y

youtube.com/watch?v=kZlOCHYu1Vk

2:50 "calling any distribution of linux GNU/Linux is simply ridiculous"

Fuck off, OP.

You can use a Linux based OS without GNU, though. Alpine, Android, etc.

>mfw someone calls an automobile a "car"

Attached: 1529008950495.png (990x682, 580K)

No you fuck off you disrespectful little shit. Give credit (to Richard Stallman) where credit is due.

yeah, it’s not an operating system. that’s why all the “distros” suck besides the ones backed by giant corporations,
like Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Android

wtf ever happened to Plan 9?!?! Ken Thompson liked it the best, and it had

>muh credit

Fuck off.

>Mandrake
where have you been since 2002???

>wtf ever happened to Plan 9
not compatible with literally everything else, and therefore useless.

I was hopping hurd would got there some day.

Yeah,

And people don't call their smartphone OS Linux.

And OP is a faggot.

fuck this linux shit, an entire day to install network drivers bc the fucking shit can't came with all the stuff it needs to be installed, im done with this neckbeard waste of time

Most people uses GNU/Linux cause of what GNU offers to them.

Just learned about the bads of systemd.
You are probably right.

Your fault for having a shitty obscure wifi chipset

>i can't be fucked to bother figuring out whether or not my hardware is actually compatible with something before installing it

Attached: 1499502417747.png (300x250, 18K)

Here we go again

Attached: images-6.jpg (384x384, 9K)

>whether or not my hardware is actually compatible with
>implying

all my problems bc X shit needed Y shit to werk, but Y shit also needed A,B and C to be installed.

didnt knew how "minimal" was a minimal ISO, basically im inventing again this chink laptop from some god forgotten chink brand

..What in god's name did you think "minimal" meant in the context of an already relatively minimal operating system? Don't pin that on Linux.

This is Lennart Poettering, the creator of systemd/Linux. Say something nice about him

Attached: lennart_1.jpg (500x320, 40K)

I don't care.

systemd is crap. i hate it.

i want my initd back.

unix specs prohibit systemd and those guys knew what they were talking about when they wrote those specs down. unlike the random hackers RedHat employs to maintain their pile of hacks

Actually there's a systemd distro that met unix spec. It's called EulerOS.
I agree that systemd is a dumpster fire though.

Attached: 1520777194426.png (800x750, 106K)

Linux without GNU can be the kernel of the OS for normal people.