So what's your final stance on the issue?

if the free software foundation care so much why dont they just make their own GNU kernel ?

Attached: confused.png (612x491, 106K)

FACT: Hurd rhymes with turd

>GNU never included Linux
It did, in 1993.
>Torvalds' included GNU
No one except him ever used that.
There is a GNU project kernel.

Because they are brainlets and have been trying for two decades without success.

It was three years.

gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
>"The GNU Hurd is under active development"

There is no effort involved, so it cannot be described as trying.

The official kernel of GNU is Hurd, it was never and will never be Linux.

Saying otherwise is an outrageous lie, as the Linux kernel contains non-free binary blobs which violates everything GNU stands for. Neither does it adhere to GNU coding standards or any other GNU convention.

>The official kernel of GNU is Hurd, it was never and will never be Linux.
There doesn't need to be an official kernel. Do you not know how free software works?
>the Linux kernel
Just say Linux. There is no other Linux.
>contains non-free binary blobs
Do you not know how a kernel works?

>There doesn't need to be an official kernel
There doesn't NEED to be, but Hurd _is_ the GNU kernel.

>Just say Linux. There is no other Linux.
Fine

>Do you not know how a kernel works?
Free as in freedom kernels exists. Linux-libre and Hurd are examples of free as in freedom kernels, without any non-free components. You're just shifting the goalpost here, Linux is obviously not a GNU project because Linus Torvalds doesn't fully commit to ensuring the users' freedom. Stallman would never compromise like that.

>There doesn't NEED to be, but Hurd _is_ the GNU kernel.
No, Hurd is a kernel developed by the GNU project.
>Linux is obviously not a GNU project
I never claimed it to be. Maybe you should try reading my posts before you respond.

>No, Hurd is a kernel developed by the GNU project.
That's implied since Hurd _is_ the GNU kernel.

>I never claimed it to be. Maybe you should try reading my posts before you respond.
Lying now? kay, I'm done. Screw this.

GNU/Linux is the long name, Linux is the shortened one.

Long form:
GNU/Linux
Mac OS X
Microsoft Windows

Short form:
Linux
OSX
Windows

I use both depending of context.

>That's implied since Hurd _is_ the GNU kernel.
There is no "the GNU kernel".
>Lying now?
Check for yourself.

>OSX
It's macOS now.

Nobody calls macOS "OS Ten" anymore.

>There is no "the GNU kernel".
Pic

>Check for yourself.
Fuck you, nigger.

>Linus' kernel was added
It was never "added"

Linux was never included in GNU.

Attached: Screenshot 2019-04-27 at 01.19.17.png (816x54, 19K)

Note that it's GNU Hurd, not GNU/Hurd.

>Pic
Pic what?
>Fuck you, nigger.
So you are wrong.
>It was never "added"
Yes it was. It was added to the GNU operating system by the GNU project to make a free clone of Unix. As was the goal of the GNU project.
>Linux was never included in GNU.
See above.
Yes, it is written by the GNU project to be part of GNU, which is the operating system. But that does not back up your claim at all.
That simply denotes that it is written under the GNU project.

The operating system on macs is no longer called "OS X" and hasn't been called that for years.
Also the shortened name should be GNU, not Linux. See how Android is known as Android and not Linux.

He's desperate now

Yes. Linuxfags stand on unstable ground.

>linuxfags
No such thing, it's part of GNU, remember? :^) Are you tripping in your own fishing line?

Attached: bait-for-you.jpg (739x742, 105K)

GNU+Linux indicates that it is a combination.
GNU Hurd indicates that it is part of the same.
You don't say Microsoft+Windows.

>it's part of GNU
It was added to GNU, no one claimed it was part of the GNU project. It can exist independently of GNU, as it is used in Google Android. Which I guess you just call Linux. It was added to GNU, not the GNU project. To be added to the GNU project it must be licensed under the GPLv3 and have a GNU project appointed maintainer.
GNU in "GNU Hurd" refers to the fact that it was developed under the GNU project, like GNU Grub, for example.

>it's not OS X it's macos now

I don't care, I'll still call it OSX forever. OS X sounds cool and edgy (the X makes it sound cool) but macos sounds gay and basedish.

>GNU in "GNU Hurd" refers to the fact that it was developed under the GNU project, like GNU Grub, for example.
Yes, Hurd is part of the GNU project. Linux is not.

>It was added to GNU, no one claimed it was part of the GNU project.
LOOOOL okay bro

It isn't part of GNU, thanks for finally admitting that. Linux was never "added" to GNU, they continue to exist independently.

Attached: goalpost.jpg (1600x1064, 439K)

Why does "Ten" sound cool to you? There will be no Mac OS 11, so get over it.

Hurd is only one of the GNU Project's kernels.
The other one, GNU Linux-libre, is used in all FSF-endorsed distributions.
Therefore, if the GNU Linux-libre kernel is used with the rest of the OS, it's a complete GNU OS.

I'll call it XP forever. It sounds cool and edgy. Windows Ten just makes it sound gay.

>Yes, Hurd is part of the GNU project. Linux is not.
That is what I have been saying.
>LOOOOL okay bro
Are you black?
>It isn't part of GNU, thanks for finally admitting that.
I never claimed it was.
>Linux was never "added" to GNU
Yes it was. In 1993.
> they continue to exist independently
You can add Linux to GNU to form a fully free OS, as was done in 1993. That does not mean Linux is part of the GNU project. Do you know how free software works?

Not him, but do you know what "added to" means? It generally means that something is incorporated into something. Maybe learn basic English before posting here?

>It generally means that something is incorporated into something
Yes. That is what happened. But since software is not finite it can be used elsewhere simultaneously. You do realise that, right?

systemd/Linux

>Yes. That is what happened
It's fucking not, since Linux demonstratively isn't part of GNU. Do you understand what "incorporated into" means?

>But since software is not finite it can be used elsewhere simultaneously.
We are not talking about where it can "be used", we are talking about how the two independent projects are maintained. GNU is lead by FSF, with their own set of rules and guidelines. The development of Linux is completely independent from that. In other words, Linux is not a part of GNU (not added to GNU, not incorporated into GNU, it is a separate project lead by separate people)

It was never pronounced "X". It has always been pronounced OS Ten.

>It's fucking not, since Linux demonstratively isn't part of GNU
It was added to the GNU operating system to form a fully free clone of Unix in 1993.
>Do you understand what "incorporated into" means?
From the wiktionary:
"To include (something) as a part.
The design of his house incorporates a spiral staircase.
to incorporate another's ideas into one's work"
Sounds about right to me.
>we are talking about how the two independent projects are maintained.
I have never claimed that the GNU project maintains Linux. I have already informed you that is not the case. You have never brought up your idea that this is about who is maintaining the software before, so I imagine you are just changing the subject. I said Linux was added to GNU, the operating system, not added to the GNU project.

Well in Spanish it's pronounced Oh-Ese-Equis, I've never head someone call it Oh-Ese-Diez so it's probably that.

X is a Roman numeral.

>It was added to the GNU operating system to form a fully free clone of Unix in 1993.
No. GNU was (and is) intended to be a Unix clone, but as several people have already pointed out, GNU is a full OS. Linux is a separate and independent kernel.

>Sounds about right to me.
So you are saying that Linux is part of GNU?

>I have never claimed that the GNU project maintains Linux.
You are literally claiming that Linux has been incorporated into, meaning, made a part of GNU. You clearly either don't understand English, or you're fucking retarded, or quite possibly both.

>You have never brought up your idea that this is about who is maintaining the software before
That's clearly wrong, see . The leaders of each independent development project were mentioned.

>I said Linux was added to GNU, the operating system, not added to the GNU project.
There is no "GNU operating system" unless you are talking about GNU Herd. That's the ONLY "GNU operating system" that will ever exist.

You are clearly talking about GNU/Linux, or as I have recently taken to calling it, GNU+Linux. The + is a lot better at denoting that the two components are used together (as also illustrated in my pic).

Stop acting delusional, Linux violates the users' freedoms. It should not be used.
You should rather use Linux-libre, which _is_ a GNU project maintained and developed by FSF.

Attached: gnu-and-tuc.png (1024x946, 781K)

X is a roman numeral. It's clearly intended to be 10, as previous versions of Mac OS has been called Mac OS 9 and Mac OS 8.

We simplify and truncate names all over the place for ease of communication. I don't see why GNU/Linux has to be an exception here. Linux is just better sounding.

Insisting on calling it GNU/Linux only benefits the small group of people who
A. Know why it's called that, and
B. Give a shit about it.
I'm not a part of that group, so I don't care.

>No. GNU was (and is) intended to be a Unix clone, but as several people have already pointed out, GNU is a full OS. Linux is a separate and independent kernel.
Software does not have to be part of the GNU project to be included in the GNU operating system. Do you know how free software works? Seriously. Answer that, it isn't rhetorical.
>So you are saying that Linux is part of GNU?
In many cases, yes. Linux is the most commonly distributed kernel for distributions (distros) of the GNU operating system.
>You are literally claiming that Linux has been incorporated into, meaning, made a part of GNU.
No, to incorporate is "To include (something) as a part". I realise your English may not be the best. But that doesn't mean what you claim.
>That's clearly wrong
No, I plainly stated it.
>There is no "GNU operating system" unless you are talking about GNU Herd
That isn't how free software works.

>Stop acting delusional, Linux violates the users' freedoms. It should not be used.
>You should rather use Linux-libre, which _is_ a GNU project maintained and developed by FSF.
Okay, you're trying to change the subject again. This is over. Work on your English, then come back. You have no idea how free software works and you have no idea what GNU or the GNU project are. I can't believe you figured out how to open a web browser.

>Software does not have to be part of the GNU project to be included in the GNU operating system.
No one ever claimed this. This has been your strawman argument all along.

>In many cases, yes. Linux is the most commonly distributed kernel for distributions (distros) of the GNU operating system.
They are literally called GNU/Linux distributions. The GNU operating system is GNU Hurd. Not even FSF calls GNU/Linux "GNU OS".

Also, it's clear that you do not understand what "added to" and "incorporated into" means. Just fuck off and learn English. I'm fucking tired of you.

Just call it Linux. The other choice seems to be common among trannies, freetards, commies and other subspecies that needs to be gassed.

I don't speak spanish. Watch any apple keynote in the last 20 years and you'll see they always say OS Ten.

>No one ever claimed this
Then I have no idea why you think you're right.
>They are literally called GNU/Linux distributions
As a compromise.
>Also, it's clear that you do not understand what "added to" and "incorporated into" means.
I already cited a definition. It shows I am right. Nice try.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as GNU operating system, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. GNU is not an operating system unto itself, but rather a set of free components of a fully functioning GNU/Linux system made useful by the Linux kernel vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the Linux kernel every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU/Linux which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically a combination of the freestanding Linux kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a GNU, 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 “GNU” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

>Then I have no idea why you think you're right.
Linux is not "added" to GNU. There is no "GNU operating system", unless you're talking about GNU Hurd. There is a GNU operating system using Linux libre, fully developed by FSF Latin America, but you explicitly mentioned 1993 (and Linux-libre didn't show up until 2008, so...).

>As a compromise.
No, because it's correct. GNU is independent from Linux. They are two components that can be combined, but Linux is not part of GNU. It is a kernel, GNU is the userland. Combined, they are the OS.

>I already cited a definition. It shows I am right. Nice try.
You demonstrate that you clearly meant that it is a part of, while at the same time claiming you're not saying that it is a part of. You're one disingenuous little spic nigger, that's what you are.

He's actually right. GNU/Linux is also useful to distinguish it from Android and stuff like that.

Calling the OS "Linux" is a marketing term pushed by IBM, Microsoft, and others, intended to spread FUD and confuse the issue about what actually constitutes an OS, and to avoid calling attention to other companies who are shipping competing products such as Red Hat and SUSE.

>trannies, freetards, commies
What are these words even supposed to mean? Do you even think before you type these lame insults?

Linux is the kernel, with no question.

One standard definition of Operating System is:
>the software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks, executing applications, and controlling peripherals.
...which Linux does. So Linux, on its own, is an operating system by this definition.

Now the Debian page states
>Linux is an operating system: a series of programs that let you interact with your computer and run other programs.
>. Because the Linux kernel alone does not form a working operating system, we prefer to use the term “GNU/Linux” to refer to systems that many people casually refer to as “Linux”.

However, Linux on its own can and does constitute an operating system -- at the most basic level, you need to be able to load a program to run, and Linux can do this by passing the desired program as the init program. You can indeed use the Linux kernel alone to run your programs, and Linux programs do not need to have dependencies on GNU software. There are other userlands available for use, although GNU's is one of the most popular.

but seriously, even the more limited definition of operating system is fulfilled by providing something to do the job of /bin/init and /bin/sh with your Linux system, and you can forgo /bin/init if you pass init=/bin/sh to the kernel

tl;dr: either Linux is an OS on its own, or the components needed to make Linux an OS are not GNU (init is fucking systemd often, and /bin/sh is often not bash)
so it's just Linux

OS X (as in OH ESS EX) is actually a completely different operating system who's name Apple could not acquire the rights for.

GNU+Linux

if you call gnu+linux (the desktop/server operating system set that people use on their computers) linux what do you call the operating system on google/samsung/nokia phones?

hint: you dont call it linux, although it also uses the linux kernel!

i call it GNU\Linux out of respect for the FSF

But your post is wrong. Linux can't schedule tasks, execute applications, or control peripherals on its own. It can execute one program, as you mentioned, which is init. From there it's init's responsibility to bring up userspace (i.e. not Linux), which can then do all the rest of those things.

linux on its own may be usable as an operating system but nobody does that so give credit where its due?

Android. It has never used a mainline kernel so it's a different operating system altogether.

neither has my libre gnu+linux distro :)

>android uses no GNU components
>but gnu linux is the most popular operating system in the world
>because android
the absolute state