Hacker News Reader

Comment by hasteur | Hacker News Reader

What other synonyms would you prefer using with respect to RMS and his obsessive-compulsive need to denounce Linus and Linux every time as "GNU Linux" instead of "Linux"?

View on HN

Well, he only obsesses over that when you refer to the OS. If you're just referring to the kernel, he thinks it's ok to call it Linux. And he doesn't think Android is GNU/Linux.

I call that a bit crazy, but also crazy reasonable, because GNU really is the foundation of the OS, along with Linux.

http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/

The point is not so much the size (which has changed over the years) but how foundational it is. You can remove without replacement almost everything else from that pie chart except Linux and GNU and still have a functional OS, but without any coreutils or Linux or a replacement for either you don't have much of an OS left.

*BSD guys seem to do pretty good without a GNU coreutils.

*BSD guys seem to do pretty good without a Linux.

If anything it shows how silly it is to call the operative system for "linux". The term distributions and operative systems has become synonymous, and distributions dwarfs both Linux and GNU.

The operative system running on my laptop and servers is called Debian. The kernel is just one of many packages available in the repository and can be replaced by a single command. Its not even the most significant important package, since libc has a higher impact during upgrades and package dependency.

For better or worse, operating systems are typically named for their kernel. I don't see Stallman making a similar argument over the naming of various proprietary Unices, or of Windows (NTOS kernel + Win32 API, for a time, at least as of ~2000, I don't stay current).

And yes, I understand RMS's interest in GNU and keeping it in currency. And refer to "GNU/Linux" quite frequently myself.

Historically operative systems was named after their kernel because each individual user put together the program that they wanted in their system. The actually term used was "Linux based operative systems", which comes from users starting with a linux kernel and then built everything else on top of it.

GNU is a project to create the individual parts which users need to make a operative system, which is why Stallman calls it GNU based operative systems. This is also attached to the historical context of users building their own systems by assembling parts to compile and run.

While we should recognize their historical and current contributions, Debian is based more on their community and policies than on any specific package.

Agreeing with all that, the distinction isn't made in general speech or writing.

MVS, CMS, VMS, OpenVMS, UNIX, Ultrix, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, DOS, CPM, BSD, MacOS, Windows, BeOS, iOS, Android.

GNU/Linux.

There are times you might specify the user environment. MVS TSO/ISPF, say. Or hardware: VAX/VMS, SolarisX86. But not elsewhere the libraries.

I get RMS's rationale. I largely support and practice it. But it runs against convention and practice through the rest of the industry, for decades.

And mentioning Debian, it's also available without Linux.

Though I agree also really packages & policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com