Is there a hex editor for linux that is on the level of HxD for windows?

GNU is just an easily replaceable userland, unlike a kernel. There are more Linux-based systems with BSD and Plan 9 utils than you think.
"GNU"/Linux has always been a lot more Linux than GNU. The term GNU/Linux gives Stallman undue credit.
You know very well what OP meant, yet you deliberately went out of your way to try to sound smart, but failed.

>GNU is just an easily replaceable userland
No, it is a project. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Those two you found pretty much sum it up, you really are better off writing you own, just don't use gtk,

GNU itself is a userland. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop sucking Stallman's cock.

No it isn't. GNU is a project, the goal of which was to build an entirely free clone of Unix. It succeded. Now we have the GNU operating system.

The GNU "project" was never completed. Hurd is still an unusable pile of crap.
As long as they can't manage to shit out a kernel of their own, GNU is nothing more than a userland.
There is no "GNU" operating system. What they call "GNU/Linux" is a lot more Linux than it is GNU.

Linux is free software, so it can be used in the GNU project. Therefore the GNU project is complete. If you think it has to be managed by GNU, then look no further than Linux-libre. GNU is not userland, don't confuse GNU with the GNU core-utils. You are just very misinformed.

The GNU "project" may be "complete", but still, there is no such thing as the GNU operating system. In terms of actual software, GNU is nothing more than an easily replaceable component. Hell, systemd is a lot harder to replace in most distros than the GNU coreutils.
>linux-libre
Further proof that "GNU/Linux" is really a lot more Linux than GNU.
As long as there is no usable, 100% GNU-developed OS, the "GNU operating system" won't be a thing.

The GNU operating system exists. It uses Linux or Linux-libre. An OS isn't named by percentage of a component. Linux is a free kernel, any OS can use it. GNU is not a component. Where do you get this stupidity from? It's like you have never even used GNU.
>As long as there is no usable, 100% GNU-developed OS, the "GNU operating system" won't be a thing.
Why? Linux is free, so anyone can use it in their OS. Your definition is arbitrary and stems from you irrational hatred of the FSM.

Attached: its_linux_1565.jpg (400x400, 94K)

It's an OS and a kernel, distros are the flavors.

It isn't an OS.
>flavours[sic]
They aren't ice cream.

Not the guy you're arguing with. GNU may exist but using the word Linux to refer to a distro with a linux kernel in it is not incorrect. The distro is the operating system - debian, arch, fedora. There exists a word that is widely accepted generalization for all those operating system - this word is Linux. You have no groun to say that using the word Linux in this context is incorrect. The only argument you might have is "but i want you to say gnu to make people more aware abotu rms" and this argument is garbage.

Okteta is the best.

No, those are distributions of the one OS. Just as Unix is an OS GNU is. GNU is what all distributions of GNU are based on. They aren't operating systems, they are distributions of the GNU operating system.

Rambling of a madman. Debian is an operating system.

Attached: firefox_2019-02-06_14-46-29.png (889x199, 104K)

according to this logic you would call windows "C#/NT" which is pants on head retarded and you know it

It is a distribution of the GNU operating system.

I don't know what Windows is, but Windows is a project, like GNU, so I would call it Windows. Your conceptualisation of my logic is faulty.

alternativeto.net/software/hxd/

According to your opinion. Debian explicitly says it's an OS. Wikipedia explicitly says it's an OS. Don't see how you want people to trust you over original source.

I'm simply stating facts. You may say you are a woman, but we all know that isn't true.

I can't argue with deluded.

>The Linux operating system exists. It uses GNU or Busybox. An OS isn't named by percentage of a component. GNU is a free userland, any OS can use it. Linux is not a component. Where do you get this stupidity from? It's like you have never even used Linux.

This is arbitrary your argument is.
Except, you know, the kernel is the most fundamental part of an operating system, unlike a userland.
If you really want to name an OS after one of its parts, it should naturally be the most fundamental one.

Listen, I'm not trying to shit on GNU. Stallman and the FSF do have merits, such as the GPL and spreading the notion of free software, but insisting on calling Linux distributions "the GNU operating system", or even "GNU/Linux" is just giving them undue credit.
There is no GNU operating system.

As long as its most fundamental parts come from software not developed by the GNU project, it can't possibly be defined as such.

> Having to install KDE runtime just so I can have a decent hex editor
>not using KDE or
>not packing it for Flatpak where it's contained
also
>what is WINE
I run Koobontoo/Lanuhcks
get on my level

Why are you derailing a thread about hex editors into autistic software labelling nuance trolling?
By the way there are several Linux distros that don't use GNU at all or have the option.

Because that's what those people do now. This is GNU.

You are just dense. GNU is a software project to create an entirely free clone of Unix. Using Linux does not invalidate it. An OS is not defined by what pieces it uses, but the overarching project. You are a brick wall.

>that don't use GNU at all
GNU is a project. You can't use or not use it.

>>You are just dense. GNU is a software project to create an entirely free clone of Unix. Using Linux does not invalidate it.
What exactly do you think is there to "invalidate"?
Of course using Linux doesn't magically "invalidate" the GNU project.
However, the operating system thus obtained can't possibly be called "the GNU operating system".

>An OS is not defined by what pieces it uses, but the overarching project.
The Linux kernel (which was actually started as a *desktop* operating system) was developed independently, originally by Linus Torvalds, and then from thousands of contributors worldwide afterwards, most of which were completely unrelated to the GNU project. Same with most other desktop environments, window managers, init systems...
According to your own definition, Linux distributions can't be called "the GNU operating system". Most of the software it runs not only wasn't developed by GNU, it wasn't even developed with being part as part of such project in mind.
These operating systems are composed of many pieces of software of diverse, separate origin. If you're gonna name it after one of its components, it's not wrong to use the most critical one.

If you aren't using GNU software, you aren't using GNU. Period. No amount of delusion will change this fact.

>i don't know what x is, but x is

Attached: 1523273550268.jpg (1170x742, 70K)

>However, the operating system thus obtained can't possibly be called "the GNU operating system".
Why not? Why do you think an OS is defined by a single component?
>second paragraph
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how much was written by who. You are so dense. I'm not responding again unless you can get this into your head and stop arguing against a strawman.
You are dumb. Learn what emphasis is. Dumb yankee.

>Why not? Why do you think an OS is defined by a single component?
I should be asking you the same question.

>You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how much was written by who. You are so dense. I'm not responding again unless you can get this into your head and stop arguing against a strawman.
I'll take this as an admittance of defeat. Hiding behind vague definitions such as "project" repeating delusions and calling others "dense" is not going to make your sorry beliefs true.
>strawman
You don't know what this word means.

>You are dumb. Learn what emphasis is. Dumb yankee.

>i totally didn't write "I don't know what Windows is, but Windows is..." guyze, you just can't read my EMPHASIS
>everyone who disagrees with me is american

>I should be asking you the same question.
A project is not a component. Are you retarded?
You don't know what a project is? I already told you the goal of the project. What a tard.

You have to post something, you can't just quote.

Holy shit you got roasted and BTFO by

The resulting operating system uses a shitload of software which was never even intended to be used as part of such "project".
There is no GNU operating system.
Not to mention that nearly every distribution is built and maintained by people not related to the GNU "project".

It's free software. It can be used in any project. How stupid are you?
>Not to mention that nearly every distribution is built and maintained by people not related to the GNU "project".
They are related because they use the GNU operating system.

Windows is not even a "project". It was originally developed as a graphical environment for DOS.

Not an emulator

A project to design a graphical environment for DOS.

Please stop, this is embarrassing

You admit defeat.

So according to your logic, the Windows operating system doesn't actually exist. Everyone is really using DOS.

>All these plebbit niggers unironically shitting on GNU and RMS
We can't ban phone posters fast enough

That hasn't been the case for two decades.

>It's free software. It can be used in any project. How stupid are you?
Yes, I'm not saying you can't use free software.
In fact, that's what pretty much any popular distribution does in reusing GNU coreutils, Linux, X, init, SSH, GTK, KDE, QT, and a lot of other software. I don't see your point.

There is no such thing as the GNU operating system. There are, however, many operating systems that use its software.
>They are related because they use the GNU operating system.
They aren't, since there is no such thing.

Same for "GNU", then.

No one here is shitting on GNU and RMS. We just want to avoid giving them undue credit.

>I don't see your point.
My point is that the OS is not defined based on who wrote the components.
>There is no such thing as the GNU operating system.
Yes there is, it is an entirely free Unix clone.
>There are, however, many operating systems that use its software.
It doesn't have software. The people who started the project just also wrote software, mostly to replace Unix tools. You don't even know what GNU is.

GNU was never based on MS-DOS.

>My point is that the OS is not defined based on who wrote the components.
The OS *is* defined by who wrote the components, repeating it won't make it true.

Why do you think that?

Just like Linux was never based on GNU.

>an os is not defined by the people who wrote it, but instead by my arbitrary autistic definition

Attached: 1536936267552.jpg (645x773, 62K)

Of course it wasn't. GNU is a project and Linux is a kernel.
Misquote.

>le meme
Sure showed him.

GNU is a project. It's not an operating system.

Yes. The GNU operating system is the OS.

if you're interested in a lightweight IDE with that capability that can also help you with other stuff, KDevelop can do that. I don't remember the last time I needed a hex editing program, so I can't really think of one off the top of my head.

>a tautology is an argument

>definitions are bad

Ironic coming from someone who used vague and arguably poorly formed definitions to support his claim.

Not vague at all. Learn English, pajeet.

Define what GNU is.

A software project with the goal of releasing a fully free clone of Unix.

It doesn't really seem an operating system itself then, according to this definition.

Retard. GNU ≠ the GNU operating system, which is the free Unix clone that was released. Are you really so stupid that you cannot follow along with a few simple definitions? How do you survive on your own? Dumb cunt.

There is no such thing as the GNU operating system.
All there is, ultimately, is a number of operating systems which use the GNU coreutils along with other software.

Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have corrected your same misconception multiple times now. You are willfully ignorant. Now GTFO.

Autistic stallman cocksuckers ruin yet another thread

>ask for a piece of software in linux
>100 replies of people arguing whether linux is an operating system
you guys are so fucking autistic

You can keep parroting that others have "misconceptions", but that doesn't change the fact that the GNU operating system doesn't exist.
Using this term merely gives the FSF and Stallman undue credit.

OP here, kekking at the autistic derailment

Attached: pepethumbsup.jpg (390x365, 23K)

lmao at this fucking thread
GNUtards really are the worst

I used Bless in the past, don't know if it's relevant

twitter.com/bigevilboss/status/1092448599403843589
>his favorite gui library doesn't provide a memory editor

I just use xxd or radare.

You're right about it being a project and wrong about it being an operating system. The "gnu operating system" is a bunch of userland cli tools that are very often replaced and that barely even get used anymore. The "gnu" on many systems doesn't provide a browser, audio codecs, etc.

If you just wouldn't be such a fucking brainlet you could harness the power of the terminal.

Unironically a proprietary one: cracked 010 editor

GNU runs on kernels besides Linux you fucking retard

The GNU operating system does not by definition have to be written by someone working on the GNU project. The goal of GNU, which I have stated, can be realised with any software as long as it is free.

>op asks for advice
>thread devolves into a war on semantics
laughing hard

Attached: 540966612732346403.gif (84x84, 5K)

That is not how [sic] works. Let me teach you the correct way:
>I hate niggers and jeews
>>I hate niggers and jeews[sic]