Linux is merely the kernel

kek

Define Unix-like

Exactly this. It's funny how people who use "Linux" to mean the entire OS still specify "b-but Android is not 'real' Linux!" ignoring that the reason they feel it isn't is because they are using the wrong terminology.
If by "Linux OSes" you mean "any OS using Linux, the kernel)", then Android fully qualifies as a Linux OS under this definition. But of course it's not GNU/Linux. That's what everyone KNOWS and FEELS, but doesn't say, because of, as I said, incorrect terminology.

An OS that behaves like Unix.

How is Android not Unix-like then?

Android is part of the Linux family, an odd one out for sure but still part of it

Because it does not behave like Unix. Have you ever written anything for Android?

I think that's a Sega Dreamcast buddy

Android may have a ton of abstractions on top it but it ultimately still uses Unix filesystem, users, privilege, etc underneath

Linux is just a techtip, retard

Nope.

The thing is, what the average person considers "Linux" is GNU/Linux, as pointed out.
Saying Android "is part of the Linux family" when the common meaning of "Linux" has been distorted is spreading misinformation.
As I already said, yes, Android technically *is* a Linux OS, in the sense that it uses the kernel called Linux.
But it's not what most people mean when they say "Linux", because they actually mean GNU/Linux.
That's why pointing out the correct terminology to use is important. Otherwise, people may be led to believe that almost completely unrelated OSes are "the same thing", when they aren't.
Just call a spade a spade, and the problem is solved.

How is it using the "Unix filesystem"? Last time I checked, the hierarchy looked nothing alike.

>hierarchy looked nothing alike
That's true but that doesn't matter, what matters is the filesystem itself, Android makes use of the same concept like directory permissions, distros like NixOS don't have the same hierarchy as well

What do you call distros that don't use anything GNU?

Linux is not, nor has it ever been, an operating system (or family of operating systems).

Linux is one piece of the many required components needed to form a functioning operating system.

Linux may be used colloquially to refer to many different distributions which use the Linux kernel, but none of those distributions would be functional without major components provided by other developers. Linux has no desktop environment. Linux has no package manager. Linux doesn't have a text editor. These are all developed and implemented entirely independently of the Linux kernel.

So, yeah, Linux is the kernel. The operating systems may be colloquially referred to as "Linux", but that's about as accurate as someone referring to a computer as a "cpu". They definitely do it, but when they do, it displays a certain level of ignorance of the subject matter.

GNU-like/Linux

The problem with calling it GNU/Linux is that you're ignoring the fact that there is alternatives for userspace components that aren't part of GNU and this quickly gets out of hand when someone asks how much of GNU can I replace before it no longer qualifies as a GNU system

Those "alternatives for userspace components" are as widespread as alternative kernels.
Besides, it's not even a matter of who wrote what. GNU is the name of the project which originally set out to create the operating system that is now commonly referred as GNU/Linux. It's only fair to include "GNU" in the name.
Ironically, fits quite well for those rare systems which don't use GNU software, but, I repeat, it's less of a question of who wrote ehat, and more of a question of who started it, amd what the name communicates.

This.

Unfortunately for you that's not how language works, GNU/Linux may overtake in the future but I don't think chastising people for sticking disagreeing with you is the way to go about it, there is no right or wrong when it comes to language

Just admit you're wrong, pal. Arguing about muh language relativism is pathetic.

>but who was potato chip ?

>init
>function
>>loop

Attached: 22LR.png (332x513, 669K)

>GNU is the name of the project which originally set out to create the operating system that is now commonly referred as GNU/Linux.
Hurd*

Why do you think I'm wrong when you're the one ignoring my arguments? Answer this question: how much of GNU can one replace before it no longer GNU/Linux?

When you make a GUI that changes the prison.

God I hate GNUtards

All of it. From >Besides, it's not even a matter of who wrote what. GNU is the name of the project which originally set out to create the operating system that is now commonly referred as GNU/Linux. It's only fair to include "GNU" in the name.

wtf was that

A kernel is an operating system, though. Nothing fundamentally separates pre-packaged userspace software from user-installed software. There's no sense in calling out GNU without listing the publishers of every program you have installed.

I never mentioned GNU anywhere in my post.

You should propose a revision to the GPL to make it so you're required to include GNU in your OS name if you even use a single line of code of theirs

>if you even use a single line of code of theirs
Amazing how you managed to misunderstand such a short post.

Excuse me for mistaking what you meant when you used such plain and obvious words like "it"

>How is it using the "Unix filesystem"? Last time I checked, the hierarchy looked nothing alike.
>Open firefox
>go to /
>etc/
>root/
>sys/
>mnt/
>dev/
>all last modified on Epoch
But I guess there's no home/robbythechildraptor/ so it's nothing like Unix...

opensource.com/resources/linux
linux.com/what-is-linux
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
plesk.com/blog/various/what-is-linux/
redhat.com/en/topics/linux/what-is-linux
networkworld.com/article/3215226/what-is-linux-uses-featres-products-operating-systems.html

LINUX IS AN OPERATING SYSTEM
DEAL WITH IT STALLMANITE GNUTARDS

Linux sux

Linux is a useless OS

Attached: IMG-20190701-WA0005.jpg (960x1280, 25K)

>useless
most of the websites you're visiting probably using linux, stay mad

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 ONTO 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.

See

So Android is the OS?

Maybe learn what a filesystem is, kid.

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 whereever 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.

(2/2)
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?

>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?

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it ... But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

Attached: 1557085211409.jpg (620x827, 177K)

You were talking hierarchy, not filesystem, you fucking cock goblin.

>Linux may be used colloquially
You got it!

criminally underrated

go back schizo troll

this but unironically

seething

Please don't call Windows+Paint+Notepad+Movie Maker "Windows."