Stop telling me linux is a kernel

stop pretending linux is a kernel fuck off linux is an os with a gui and the linux company is responsible for it and the linux company has done a bad job and that's why there's no file picker and you are all lying to defend your precious linux when in fact you are all hippo crates because i bet you all pirated it too so you're not even supporting the shitty linux company you claim loyalty to and you're all a bunch of dirty criminals for pirating linux from the linux property intellectual property of the linux company copyright linux torvalds

Attached: tuxbrainlet.png (594x720, 95K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid#Linux
linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/
developer.android.com/ndk/guides/standalone_toolchain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#Appliances_and_reception
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

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.

Attached: stallman.png (500x315, 118K)

there is only one distribution and that's linux and GUN doesn't exist and all of you are lying to me

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.

shut up fuck you fuck you you're wrong there are no linux distributions and no GUN and linux is NOT free it is a PRODUCT that someone fucking SPENT MONEY TO MAKE and you are just PIRATING it you AMORAL SCUM

For the people that argue for GNU:
how much GNU software needs to be installed before you think it's proper to recognize it as GNU or GNU/Linux? Or is it a combination of specific components?

What would Stallman say about Alpine Linux? Surely that's not a part of what he deems 'the GNU system' right?

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.

>how much GNU software needs to be installed before you think it's proper to recognize it as GNU or GNU/Linux? Or is it a combination of specific components?
The basic core utils need to be GNU.

>What would Stallman say about Alpine Linux? Surely that's not a part of what he deems 'the GNU system' right?
Right. But it owns it's existence to the GNU project, as does Linux.

What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux. Linux is a non-free operating system kernel. GNU is the userland (the collection of programs that run on top of the kernel). Likewise, the combination of Linux and GNU makes a complete and functional operating system which is called GNU/Linux. To call the whole operating system “Linux” is both unfair and confusing since it embargoes credit to Linus Torvals and his contributors and turns them away from GNU's goals. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the kernel alone.

gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid#Linux

Attached: prop.png (640x480, 696K)

linux is a kernel
goos post

no you are wrong linux is a complete operating system and GUN doesn't exist
GUN doesn't exist
>linux is a kernel
NO you are wrong

It might be shocking for you but, Linux is just a kernel. And despite being the most important component of an operating system it is plain useless on its own. To get it in the context of a functional operating system, it needs the use of an userland, usually GNU, which is comprised of shell utilities and libraries. The combination between the two results in a complete operating system called GNU/Linux which is what you're referring to here. Please call it GNU/Linux to avoid confusion and to distinguish it from the kernel alone and to give GNU credit.

By the older standards Linux alone is an OS since it manages all the hardware resources, schedules programs and services, etc, many of that was considered highly advance even. By the newer standards not even gnu+linux is an OS no matter what the bearded sole eater tries telling you since it requires additional software to even boot. Linux is not meant to be used by itself, it's meant to be built upon. That's why it's a kernel, not an OS. GNU has less scope than .net framework yet I don't see anyone claiming .net is an os.

actually great post but you really took the bait there

Thanks! Always wondered about this.

Where can I download that Linux OS you're speaking of?

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?

(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 wherever 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.

>GUN doesn't exist
Never said otherwise.
>despite being the most important component of an operating system
Some parts of the operating system are more important than others but there is no single most important thing.
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.

I know this is bait, but:
the "Linux company" even lies on their website:
linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/
>It is this kernel which, after its initial release by Linus Torvalds in 1991, jump-started the development of Linux as a whole.
Most software used in current GNU/Linux systems already existed long before Linux was even started.

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.

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?

GNU/Cringe

Attached: staring at post in disregard.jpg (528x628, 45K)

X is not an operating system core util and most GNU plus linux systems don't even have it installed.
Dumb linus poster go back to making shitty youtube reviews.

Ah so GIMP = Green Is My Pepper?

Most Linux systems don't even have GNU installed. So?

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.

>Most Linux systems don't even have GNU installed. So?
Yes they do. Even the ones which do not are not Linux, they are Linux plus something.

>shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'?
No because it's developed by the GNU project, not the Linux project.

The only places where GNU still exists is desktops and servers. The rest ditched GNU for storage or license reasons.

And why can't you refer to all of those collectively as Linux OSes? What are you supposed to call them? "Linux plus whatever else"? "Linux plus maybe GNU or busybox something"?

[citation needed]

[citation needed]
Also, doesn't defeat the point. The other ones would be Linux plus Something.

Routers, automobiles, android phones. All use various *boxes and own C libraries, android in particular doesn't even use gcc anymore.
>The other ones would be Linux plus Something.
So if I install Tux Racer my OS become Linux+Tux Racer?

Linux plus Something, yes. Perhaps Unix-like systems or GNU-like systems if you have problems with using the trademark unix.

Of course it might be the case that the developers of the something-else ask people to refer to their software just as "linux" but that would cause problems with the linux foundation and a colossal headache if they ever support other kernels.

>Routers, automobiles, android phones. All use various *boxes and own C libraries, android in particular doesn't even use gcc anymore.
[citation needed]
[your word is not a citation]

>So if I install Tux Racer my OS become Linux+Tux Racer?
No, because Tux Racer is not an OS core util.

I have other things to do and you seem like a person of low intelligence, since this has already been explained. I might reply later.

And before you come with the stupid argument of tux racer being a core util on your own OS, "core util" is an already defined term.

>[citation needed]
developer.android.com/ndk/guides/standalone_toolchain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#Appliances_and_reception
>No, because Tux Racer is not an OS core util.
Neither is GNU.

GNU is not a collection of programs. It's a complete operating system that works with many kernels. The most popular version of the GNU system is in combination with Linux.

If you tell people they should call it GNU/Linux because there are done GNU tools combined with the Linux OS, you fell in a trap and people will reply "why don.t we list Firefox too?, what names GNU special?". People should call it GNU/Linux because it's the GNU system, created in 1983, which many people today use with Linux, created in 1991.

99% of programs target Linux API directly not being aware of GNU at all.

Calling a group of OSes "Linux plus something" instead of just "Linux" (which everybody understands in the context, btw) in normal conversation is absurd. The kernel is the main distinguishing part of the OS - if your OS were to use Hurd or something else it would be used like "I'm using Hurd", not "I'm using GNU+Hurd".

>GNU is not a collection of programs. It's a complete operating system that works with many kernels.
GNU is not that special. You don't get to be part of the OS's title and signature just because you provide 'ls'.

fuck all of you GUN doesn't fucking exist the only part of linux is linux and its an os and there is no such thing as a kernle why the fuck would you even call linux a """""kernel"""""""" wer'e talking about oses (also known as "desktop environments") not popcorn you reatards

See System calls are the core part of a Linux using OS. libc is another, but that's not always glibc while Linux most of the time is the kernel of anything that's not Windows or Macos.

Reminder that it's hypocritical to claim that that system is just "Linux", if you don't call Android "Linux" as well.

wtf are yiou talking about android is android it's made by google

>developer.android.com/ndk/guides/standalone_toolchain
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#Appliances_and_reception
Your claim was that GNU was not present in most systems using the linux kernel, not that there exists non-gnu core utils. There is not debate here on the existence of non-gnu systems capable of using the linux kernel.

But as I said, the matter is pointless. If the system uses the Linux kernel and GNU core utils it's GNU plus linux. How many other systems exist that do or do not use the the GNU core utils in conjunction with the linux kernel is irrelevant.

>Neither is GNU.
As I said here: >you seem like a person of low intelligence

There is not Linux API idiot. Linux implements the POSIX(name suggested by stallman btw) API with a few more calls.

Call it unix-like or posix system, it includes bsd, solaris and mac and what works on one usually works on all.
>The kernel is the main distinguishing part of the OS
Some parts of the operating system are more important than others but there is no single most important thing.

But Android is a Linux. Obviously context determines whether "Linux" refers to the kernel, desktop distributions (using GNU, usually) or any OS using the kernel at large

good post
bad post

lmao
Imagine if freetards actually did something useful instead of wasting time defending their commie pedo kike cult leader

Attached: sflc2007compensation2.png (811x512, 69K)

>Call it unix-like or posix system, it includes bsd, solaris and mac and what works on one usually works on all.
I call them POSIX whenever that's relevant - but usually I _don't_ want to include BSD or Macos.

Based.

>Your claim was that GNU was not present in most systems using the linux kernel, not that there exists non-gnu core utils.
There are more android phones than all PCs combined.
>As I said here
Now waiting for your citation proving GNU is a core part of an OS.
>There is not Linux API idiot. Linux implements the POSIX
Turbo brainlet, don't bother replying to me. Linux has grown WAY beyond posix, that's why other """unixes""" aren't viable outside their toy environments.

This. That's why the "GNU/Linux" name is meaningful, as it helps clearly distinguish them.
What most people consider "Linux" is GNU/Linux. Android is a separate system which uses Linux, but it's not the GNU operating system, so it makes sense to not consider it GNU/Linux.
Calling all GNU/Linux systems just "Linux", but then saying Android is "not real Linux" is retarded.
Call things what they are. Android uses Linux, therefore it's a legitimate Linux system. But it's not the GNU system, which also usually uses Linux..

Guys, it's easy. It's called just Linux so millionaires who don't even use Linux get richer and richer. GNU, copyleft, freedom, that's just hippie stuff that scares companies away. Don't use these words.

Attached: 1560201592181.jpg (1200x1011, 273K)

Linux literally can't exist without GNU.
Not only is it licensed under the GPLv2, it also doesn't compile with any compiler other than gcc, as it relies on its extensions.

Is windows 10 gnu/linux?
Factually wrong. BTW, GPL is revocable.

Who's saying "Android isn't real Linux"?

penis

bad argument, the systems can exist without each other and since companies shill for permissive licensing and therefore push clang a lot, in special environments, linux already conpiles with clang

fuck you android is android linux is linux. android isn't linux, linux isn't android, bada bing bada boom zimbo zambo you catch my fucking drift. android is made by the google company linux is made by thelinux company they aren't even the same company you brainlets how could they possibly be based on the same software if they're owned by two different companies that both have copyright on the respective properties

>Is windows 10 gnu/linux?
No, of course not.
>Factually wrong.
Linux literally is licensed under the GPLv2, this isn't even up to debate.

clang only shilled on certain architectures.

derp

>Using the 3,6 kernel.
Not great but not terrible.

Based retard.

in what world does what you're saying make any sense?
Linux being licensed under GPL does not make it GNU/Linux any more than windows having a EULA make it EULA/NT.
Linux being compiled with gcc does not make it GNU/Linux any more than windows being compiled under Intel C++ make it Intel-C++/NT.

Neither of these have anything to do with the gnu coreutils, which Maybe could be argued as a part of the operating system, but that's still an incredible stretch.

GNU is not just the coreutils.

Linux is the desktop version of Android.

Attached: 1554746669622.jpg (640x489, 40K)

There's a lot of confusion ITT, so here's little guide:

"Linux", slang for "GNU/Linux"
- the name of the operating system created by Richard Stallman

"the kernel", slang for "Linux"
- the name of the kernel in Linux, created by Linus Torvalds

The confusion kicks in when you look up "Linux" on the web and see Linus Torvalds listed as creator. Don't get confused here. Linus Torvalds only made the kernel. Stick to the above guide and everything will keep making sense.

You can't deny that I'm right. That's how people speak, that's the truth, that's what you have read and will read, that's what people mean when they say "Linux" or the "kernel".

now i'm confused

>hippo
>crates

yeah your'e all hippo crates for lying and calling linux GUN/linux to defend it when you don't even buy linux legitimately you just pirate it through tor archives