Stop using GNU

Yeah this, he's making mad money because of you retards. I actually liked his videos on software, now it's just dumb clickbait.

you need a lobotomy

oh noes, that fag is back

Attached: tshirt-6b.jpg (285x423, 36K)

Take your skittles, Alice.

>Tried to watch the video but he's wrong from the outset. GNU is not the GNU core utilities.
He literally says
>GNU is the set of utilities *and other things that go into the operating system*
And on the left he has a page displaying the other elements of GNU, and alternatives to them. His previous video was about alternative shells and lack of POSIX compliance/portability when writing scripts in bash, hence why this video is focusing primarily on GNU coreutils and the similar issues they can have. Maybe you should try to work on your selective listening issues.

>He literally says
>>GNU is the set of utilities *and other things that go into the operating system*
That's what I said, and he is wrong.
> Maybe you should try to work on your selective listening issues.
It's pretty hard to be selective out of the 10 seconds where he was blatantly wrong.

he keeps forgetting that GNU = GNU's Not UNIX

This is the same guy who was talking about "the UNIX philosophy" when he was using GNU. He's an idiot.

You said:
>GNU is not the GNU core utilities. He thinks that is what GNU refers to.

He said:
>GNU is the set of utilities ******and other things that go into the operating system******
i.e., components other than _just_ the coreutils.

So either you're being an intentionally obstinate retard, or you don't think that the GNU coreutils are part of GNU. Either way, you are lacking in some form of comprehension.

>i.e., components other than _just_ the coreutils.
Yes, that is false. But the point is he thinks GNU is a set of software. That is retarded and shows how little he knows. Probably just got that from some copypasta.
>or you don't think that the GNU coreutils are part of GNU
No, I just know that GNU is not a set of software like the GNU core utilities.

It's not UNIX but it's Unix in practice.

STOP POSTING YOUR DISGUSTING FACE

The reason it is called GNU is because yes, it was intended as a free clone of UNIX, it is legally distinct from UNIX. But the GNU project has never been about UNIX, it simply uses UNIX as a base to push free software. The ultimate goal is for everyone to use free software, not for everyone to use free UNIX.

>No, I just know that GNU is not a set of software like the GNU core utilities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
>GNU is an operating system and an extensive collection of computer software.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

I'm going to take a wild swing here and guess you're autisming over the free software movement and conflating the GNU operating system with the GNU Project--the GNU Project is a free software initiative and the GNU operating system is a result of this initiative. It is entirely, technically accurate to describe the GNU operating system as a set of software without strictly mentioning the FSF or free software, even if you find it morally or politically inappropriate.

>I'm going to take a wild swing here and guess you're autisming over the free software movement and conflating the GNU operating system with the GNU Project

Looks like I was correct.

>wikipedia
Why not go to the source instead?
gnu.org/home.en.html
>GNU is an operating system that is free software—that is, it respects users' freedom. The GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically released by the GNU Project) as well as free software released by third parties. The development of GNU made it possible to use a computer without software that would trample your freedom.
So you are wrong. Stop conflating the GNU Core Utilities with GNU. They are different. But you just can't accept that.

Wasn't the entire point of the video about the interoperability between GNU software and other Unix-like implementations? Brainlets focus on this one nitpick while normal brained people know that this is just one example of a generalized problem.

>Wasn't the entire point of the video about the interoperability between GNU software and other Unix-like implementations?
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The point I am making is that he does not know what GNU is. Everyone already is well aware of the history of GNU and its purpose, so it is not worth discussing.

GNU is not program collection. This is very important!

Attached: Screenshot_2.png (526x513, 296K)

More like you didn't watch the video at all. His exact words were "...GNU is a set of utilties and other things that go into the operating system." This misinterpretation could be from poor wording but never did he claim in the video that the coreutils are solely what makes GNU. He only went on to focus on the coreutils in order to demonstrate the interoperability problems when scripting with GNU.

Hi, Luke. Are you going to make a video about this? I mean, you do damage control every other time you are blatantly wrong about simple facts.

>GNU is a set of utilties and other things that go into the operating system.
Which is wrong. That is the issue. He does not know what GNU is.

I'm not luke you fucking retard

And if you really think that being correct about what is gnu is important:

kill yourself

>The GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically released by the GNU Project
The GNU packages include the coreutils. The GNU coreutils are not GNU in and of itself, obviously, but they are an element of GNU. This is exactly what Luke said as well, and I presume you're continuing to be obstinate about this and selectively interpreting what he said.

Also, on the very same website:
gnu.org/software/software.en.html
>The GNU system contains all of the official GNU software packages (which are listed below), and also includes ***non-GNU free software***
You cannot call non-GNU software GNU. At best, you can say it's "part" of the GNU *system*, but I think it is much more appropriate to use the term "in addition to" (which, as I will demonstrate later, Stallman himself says as well). There is a reason that the "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux" distinction exists, and in the past, even a "GNU/Linux/X" distinction and further subdivisions. If you read later, the very same paragraph also says:
>the GNU system is not a single static set of programs; users and distributors may select different packages according to their needs and desires. **The result is still a variant of the GNU system.**

Different third-party software results in a _variant_ of the GNU system. Elsewhere on the site, it also describes GNU/Linux as a _variant_ of the GNU system,
gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TheGNUsystem
>Meanwhile, the GNU/Linux system, an offshoot of the GNU operating system
and he states
>The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as /the/ GNU system.
(ergo, there is a differentiation between GNU/Linux systems and a "pure" GNU system)
and lastly
>The system as a whole is basically the GNU system, with Linux added.

Therefore, additional software should be viewed as an addition to the base GNU system in such a way that a variant is produced.

Yeah, it's rare you're right about anything, Luke. I mean, you think OpenBSD is UNIX. It's for the best if you stop caring about being right.

Attached: ourguy.png (1325x818, 129K)

At this point, you're literally autisming about the difference between GNU programs and GNU project. Even sticking with your autistically pedantic restriction. I don't see how "...GNU is a set of utilties and other things that go into the operating system" can strongly contradict with "The GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically released by the GNU Project) as well as free software released by third parties". Unless you're literally nitpicking Luke's choice of separating GNU programs/utilities with the operating system itself.

C P E

>you think OpenBSD is UNIX
Where was this said? Even then, quite a lot of people tend to use the terms "UNIX" and "Unix-like" interchangeably.

>but they are an element of GNU
No, they are just used in GNU, like a lot of different software.
>This is exactly what Luke said as well
I don't think he did, but he would be wrong if he did. He thinks there is no operating system called GNU. He thinks GNU is just software written by the GNU project.
>You cannot call non-GNU software GNU
No one did, and they didn't. GNU is the operating system and software written by those not part of the GNU project can still be used in GNU. Such is the nature of free software.
>There is a reason that the "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux" distinction exists
Not for the reason you think. It is really just a compromise, since the world was about equally split on GNU vs Linux as the naming convention in the mid-90s.
>Different third-party software results in a _variant_ of the GNU system. Elsewhere on the site, it also describes GNU/Linux as a _variant_ of the GNU system,
Yes, and? That is what I have been saying.
>(ergo, there is a differentiation between GNU/Linux systems and a "pure" GNU system)
No, actually. What this is saying is that all GNU/Linux systems are GNU, but not all GNU systems are GNU/Linux. Pretty basic logic.
>Therefore, additional software should be viewed as an addition to the base GNU system in such a way that a variant is produced.
No, but read above and learn why GNU/Linux naming exists.

No, why do you think that? GNU is an operating system wholly independent of the GNU project.

well go ahead, define what GNU is stallman.

I already did. See above.

Because you're nitpicking. At this point, you're just arguing about the semantics of "...GNU is a set of utilties and other things that go into the operating system". This few seconds of the video that you are deliberately interpreting as something you don't like is the very reason why this shit thread continues to exist.

Why are you so upset about being wrong, Luke? Just accept it. You don't know what GNU is.

>GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically released by the GNU Project) as well as free software released by third parties.
vs
>...GNU is a set of utilties and other things that go into the operating system
literally semantics

>no argument

You've derailed whole thread torwards your spergs.

I've seen raw autism like this only once. But it didn't scared me enough back then

No that isn't semantics. Luke says that GNU is a set of utilities and "other things" that go into THE operating system. THE operating system he was referring to is GNU/Linux, a variant of GNU. He is basically saying that GNU is not an operating system unto itself, which is patently false. If you think that is semantics then you are gravely mistaken.
This response only works when you supply an argument I can respond to.

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.

Okay, look. Half of this thread is people trying to figure out the unbelievably autistic point you are trying to make.

Rather than wasting my time trying to address every conceivable point you might be trying to make (which is why people are bringing up things like the GNU Project because we honestly can't figure out what your hang-up is), how about you give us YOUR definition of GNU, and why you think Luke saying "GNU is a set of utilities and other things that go into the operating system" is so egregious? Particularly when the Wikipedia page for GNU states:
>GNU is an operating system and ***an extensive collection of computer software.***
Which has 6 citations?

GNU is an operating system. But it is also an extensive collection of computer software that goes into that operating system. The term "GNU" is generally used to refer to both.

>But it is also an extensive collection of computer software that goes into that operating system
That just isn't true. That is not GNU. GNU is an operating system, I already defined that. See above. GNU does not refer to any software written by the GNU project, it refers just to the operating system, GNU. It's very simple.

Actually, GNU/Linux or GNU 'plus' Linux as someone has recently taken to calling it, is the correct terminology for the GNU Operating System.

No one fking cares can we talk about the content of his video?

>Actually, GNU/Linux or GNU 'plus' Linux as someone has recently taken to calling it, is the correct terminology for the GNU Operating System.
No, GNU/Linux is a variant of the GNU operating system. Are you retarded or just choosing not to listen?

...
wow.

the point im making is who could give a flying fk about terminology.

>the point im making is who could give a flying fk about terminology.
Then why make a point about your mistaken belief of what GNU is?

people that like Linux is not going to stop using it just because you want them to,

besides the BSDs dont have half the support and userbase as Linux does, Linux has far more software too, everything from audio & video editing and viewing to office, and graphics editing, even SDR radio software that is good enough to give anything made for MS_Windows a run for their money, and its all FREE!!!

>Then why make a point about your mistaken belief of what GNU is?
ehh? your sarcasm detector is broken.

bickering over a jargon in an informal video about adressing the impurity of GNU Core Utils vs other *nix platforms is kind of autistic.

Though if that was Luke posting earlier, I give you full props for successfully trolling him, whether indirectly by your own autism or by chad 8d chess.

>about adressing the impurity of GNU Core Utils vs other *nix platforms is kind of autistic.
>impurity
GNU was never about preserving anything about UNIX. UNIX was always just a vessel for free software. There was never a soft spot for UNIX among the GNU project.

Again, I laud you for the entertaining autism I give it an S Ranking but it's growing stale now.

>GNU does not refer to any software written by the GNU project, it refers just to the operating system, GNU
Okay, then please tell me--

If the term "GNU" is entirely inappropriate for defining software, and refers SOLELY to the operating system, then why does the FSF and Stallman himself use the term "non-GNU" when referring to components not written by the GNU project?

>then why does the FSF and Stallman himself use the term "non-GNU" when referring to components not written by the GNU project?
Because they weren't written by the GNU project. Saying they are non-GNU, as shorthand, does not mean the software that is not called non-GNU is what GNU is.

Don't impersonate Saint Lukius Smithius. He never said to stop using GNU.

Evidence:
youtu.be/nTCHapo8QFM?t=444

I didn't say he did.

whoops not you

Don't impersonate Saint Lukius Smithius. He never said to stop using GNU.

The trinitarian Saint is innocent and must be exhonerated.

Evidence:
youtu.be/nTCHapo8QFM?t=444

>In this episode the humanities dropout mistakenly thinks Plan9's userland is POSIX compliant.
He really doesn't know anything.

why is he so divisive to this community?

Attached: 1408203031356.png (1100x1000, 175K)

Your point is based on the premise that GNU is an operating system. It isn't, regardless of what Stallman says. GNU/Linux is the operating system. Even if GNU is 99% of an operating system (in modern GNU/Linux distributions, it's significantly less than that, more around ~8% or less), it still requires a kernel to function and be whole--a kernel is a fundamental part of an operating system, therefore, without one, it cannot be defined as an OS. It is therefore appropriate in, for example, a GNU/Linux system, to refer to GNU as the "set of utilities and other components that make up the operating system", as even if it is the most substantial part, it is nonetheless a part that makes up a whole. Stallman's only counter to this point is that "we set out to make out a full operating system, so GNU should be defined as one". This cannot be viewed as a technical definition--it is a semantic one. The only operating system that can appropriately be called "GNU" is GNU/Hurd.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Were you born before 2000? Because that is what it sounds like. GNU can be and has been used with many kernels besides Linux. Some free, some non-free. But GNU is the constant operating system. Think of GNU like UNIX. Solaris, macOS, HP-UX etc. these are all UNIX. But, you might say, they are all very different. Yes, they are very different, but they are all UNIX. The same is for GNU.

POSIX is GNU bloat anyway, what's more, nobody actually follows any standards faithfully, they all subtly differ

POSIX has nothing to do with GNU.

>GNU can be and has been used with many kernels besides Linux. Some free, some non-free.
Sure.
>But GNU is the constant operating system.
No. GNU is a collection of utilities and software that require a kernel to constitute a fully functioning operating system. An "operating system" without a kernel is NOT an operating system. Solaris, macOS, HP-UX, Windows, any other operating system you can name possesses a kernel. GNU does not. GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd or GNU/*BSD is an operating system. GNU is not.

This.

Luke Smith is /ourguy/

>GNU is a collection of utilities and software that require a kernel to constitute a fully functioning operating system
Where do you get that from? I mean, I just told you that GNU runs on many different kernels. Why do you think it can't when I've so clearly explained that to you?
>GNU does not.
GNU can use many kernels.

He is! Go watch his youtube channel and become a patreon or donate during a livestream using 'superchat'.
He is very cool and not trying hard at all.

>I mean, I just told you that GNU runs on many different kernels.
Yes, GNU is a collection of utilities and software that can be used with many different kernels to constitute a fully functioning operating system. Without those kernels, it is not an operating system. A kernel is a fundamental part of an operating system. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to GNU in and of itself as an operating system, in much the same way it is not appropriate to refer to Linux or any other standalone kernel as an operating system, as they lack the entire set of software required to constitute one. I cannot just up and say "this Python script is an operating system" if it meets absolutely none of the criteria for being an operating system.

>GNU can use many kernels.
Yes, it can.

Calm down mate. It's just a cool dude from the internet.

>Yes, GNU is a collection of utilities and software that can be used with many different kernels to constitute a fully functioning operating system
No, GNU is the operating system. It is the overarching theme in this, if you will.
>Without those kernels, it is not an operating system
Why do you think that?
> A kernel is a fundamental part of an operating system.
And GNU runs with lots of them.
>Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to GNU in and of itself as an operating system,
That does not logically follow, so please don't use therefore in your sentence.
>the criteria for being an operating system.
Which is objectively defined by whom?

Send me a link for downloading this so-called "GNU Operating System".

Which variety?

>gahnoo core yoodils

So I see you're using Glibc. I'm actually a Musl man myself.

Attached: images.jpg (300x168, 7K)

I found it odd how he can't pronounce "utils" properly. He does know it is shorthand for utilities, right?

Since "The GNU Operating System" seems to be a valid reference to some collection of software, just send me a link to download this collection of software.

Well, that is like asking for a UNIX download. Doesn't narrow it down enough. GNU's Not Unix, but it is a clone, after all.

No.

Just give me a the list of software sufficient to define what "The GNU Operating System" refers to.

See above. I already did that.

There's a bug in my browser and I can't see anything above my first post here. Can you send me a link to "The GNU Operating System" so I can install it and view your post from it?

Okay, which variety are you after?

I'm specifically interested in "The GNU Operating System" variety.

>No, GNU is the operating system. It is the overarching theme in this, if you will.
No, it isn't. Saying that repeatedly doesn't make it true. GNU does not possess a kernel. An operating system requires a kernel. Therefore, GNU is not an operating system. GNU/Linux, by contrast, is an operating system.

>Why do you think that?
Because that is the generally accepted definition of an operating system.

>And GNU runs with lots of them.
Yes, it does. I see no point in you continuing to bring up this point. It does not make GNU, in and of itself, an operating system. It is not.

>That does not logically follow, so please don't use therefore in your sentence.
Therefore is entirely appropriate to use in this context. If x lacks the quality required to be properly defined as y, it logically follows that x cannot be called y.

>Which is objectively defined by whom?
A large number of computer science textbooks, computer science experts, standard dictionary definitions (whereby the presence of a kernel is at least implied if it isn't explicitly noted), online definitions, etc. Although I am sure there are some who contest such a definition, generally speaking, it is the overwhelming consensus that a kernel is a fundamental and necessary part of an operating system. Feel free to research these things yourself, I don't intend to do it for you.

I somehow doubt that with the direction this conversation is going, any source(s) I provide will be sufficient for you anyway. If this argument is going to devolve into some philosophical nonsense regarding true objectivity/absolute subjectivity, then there is no sense in continuing this conversation. If you disagree with the notion that a kernel is a necessary part of an operating system, then you are going against general consensus, and all that is left for us is to agree to disagree.

No, I mean which variety of the GNU operating system? This is like going to an ice cream shop and asking for "ice cream".
>An operating system requires a kernel
According to who exactly?
>Because that is the generally accepted definition of an operating system.
By and from who?
>Yes, it does. I see no point in you continuing to bring up this point. It does not make GNU, in and of itself, an operating system. It is not.
Actually, it very much does.
>Therefore is entirely appropriate to use in this context
No, because your deduction does not logically follow.
>A large number of computer science textbooks, computer science experts, standard dictionary definitions (whereby the presence of a kernel is at least implied if it isn't explicitly noted), online definitions, etc
That is very vague. You may as well have said nothing at all.
>Although I am sure there are some who contest such a definition, generally speaking, it is the overwhelming consensus that a kernel is a fundamental and necessary part of an operating system. Feel free to research these things yourself, I don't intend to do it for you.
Again, you're forming a conclusion based on no evidence for the sole purpose of supporting your unfounded claim. The fact that you have nothing shows why you should not be in this argument to begin with.
>I somehow doubt that with the direction this conversation is going, any source(s) I provide will be sufficient for you anyway
If they meet my criteria, which is to simply be objective, then I will accept them.

>objectively defined
This is a meaningless statement. Read some basic philosophy and formal logic before posting on this board.

This isn't some metaphysical concept. This is about the definition of something very real. It should be quite easy, considering his conviction, for him to back up his statement. But I guess he was always just full of hot air and never should have opened his mouth.

Why care about the opinions of an Arch user?
Using deprecated software intentionally is a sign of downs syndrome.

Attached: fd42ed2ac444ec95645e3277e31f919a8d91b3c600868c829c491a0ab5e831c2.jpg (2460x1573, 1.66M)

You need to do the following right now:
1) Define "operating system" (presumably this is a collection of software satisfying certain propertirs)
2) Define "The GNU Operating System" and provide a formal proof of it constituting an "operating system" in accordance with the definition given in 1)
2) Define

>1) Define "operating system" (presumably this is a collection of software satisfying certain propertirs)
Done. See above.
>2) Define "The GNU Operating System" and provide a formal proof of it constituting an "operating system" in accordance with the definition given in 1)
See above.
>2) Define
Oops. His brain melted.

According to you people, "Ice Cream" is already a complete ice cream unto itself, which would mean that I don't have to order "Ice Cream/Chocolate", right? I just need to order Ice Cream.

So give me a download link to the GNU operating system.