When a piece of software is assembled by other smaller software, there exists a contribution hierarchy. In case of GNU + Linux, the hierarchy goes
#1 GNU
#2 Linux
Etc.
After the second one, there other software which vary depending on your distribution. Now, calling it just Linux doesn't make any sense. Why don't you call it, for example, i3wm? It's a contribution to your OS as well. Calling it just GNU is, in my opinion, correct since it's the top contribution, but can be confusing since project with name GNU already exists, just like Linux, and neither of them are an OS. First combination that is an OS are GNU and Linux combined. Therefore, not to address already existing projects improperly and to follow the hierarchy, GNU/Linux is the most appropriate name. If you are calling it just "Linux", you might as well call it "Bash" or "SystemDick".
When a piece of software is assembled by other smaller software, there exists a contribution hierarchy...
GNU is installed first? I figured linux would be installed first since its like the backbone that communicates with the hardware.
Linux is just a strong consonant. GNU will never stick as a term. Its fucking Linux. who gives a shit what its called as long as you know its GNU linux
No, it's called 'systemd' or 'systemd distro' since systemd starts up and manages the entire thing.
I wasn't talking about installation process but rather how much they contribute to the OS as a whole.
It's Emacs distro because my Emacs deamon starts when I turn on my computer and I use it for everything.
lol why make a distinction. Obviously the part that communicates with he hardware is very important, whats the point
systemd is a meme because when I say I dont know why Jow Forums thinks its bad, then read the link why, I still dont get it.
Well GNU is also important to make use of the kernel and provide tools necessary for you to use them.
"them" being kernel features
of course but why make a distinction about which is more important. They are equally important. Linus Torvalds stated in an interview he couldnt write a GUI to save his life. Obviously his expertise was in hardware interaction. Delet dis
what if i build my system without any gnu components and without using gcc or other gnu tools?
will you still bitch at me for not calling it gnu/linux?
Well Linus is based because GUI is shit. Now, if we say that they are equally important, OS should still be called GNU/Linux because both GNU and Linux already exist and neither is an OS. Of course not, but you didn't do that.
why dont you make up yr own spoken language so everyone can speak the same language. Because thats the same futility that you will get by trying to get people to call it GNU/linux.
its fucking linux. Everyone knows its really GNU/linux. Get over it
GNU software was necessary to make the kernel. The Linux kernel doesn't provide any user land whilst GNU provide an complete DE(gnome) and other tools that make up the userland
Shouldn’t this shitty logic apply to Windows and MacOSX too? And if we’re actually going to take it seriously outside of a context where it counts, shouldn’t we use a context where it does count and include real-world hierarchy contributors too? (i.e. Calling it “Linus Torvald’s GNU/Linux” or “Steve Jobs’ Unix/MacOSX”)
Of course we don’t. In online discussion, honestly just out of sucking up to Stallman, I’ll write it out as GNU/Linux. But if I’m talking in a conversation and someone asks me about my operating system, you can bet your ass I’m just going to call it Linux.
I am NPC. This thread has a picture of ugly Santa. What is GNU? Continue search for threads about apple products.
Why not call it POSIX/Wayland?
Everything else is an implementation detail most users will never notice.
I installed Linux with the Busybox userland and compiled it with clang though. Where's your Gahnoo now you freetard fucker?
Busybox emulates GNU shell utilities. You.re running a GNU emulator.
Yes, but the point is Windows wasn't assembled out of already made software from different people but is one proprietary system written by code monkeys at M$. Same goes for Aplol. M$ decided to call the work of their monkeys Windows as it was all written under M$ and Aplol decided to name their OS MacOS because it was all written under Aplol. You can add the creator's/founder's name if you want, it's certainly not wrong(although the part where you say GNU/Linux is Linus' is wrong indeed). What's the point of writing GNU/Linux if you will avoid saying it in a talk?
Then that doesn't apply to you, you are using Busybox/Linux in that case. My Gahnoo is mostly in the idea of Busybox.
> hit & run
t. OP
I call it GNU just for the record. I never say Linux. Thank you.
People might mistakenly assume you're using GNU/Hurd.
GNU/Busybox
I do as it follows:
1. Say GNU/Linux when I'm referring to the desktop operating system that we use
2. Say Linux when I'm talking about Linux.
3. Say Android when I'm talking about the mobile operating system that uses Linux.
This guy gets it.