Hacker News Reader

Comment by DyslexicAtheist | Hacker News Reader

I've never referred to Linux as GNU/Linux simply because I dislike the activism behind the term. Also GNU is everywhere once I open my box. There is gnuplot, gawk, gnu-grep, literally every command that I read the man page has added gnu-ish features I'm deeply thankful for. I would have no problem calling it GNU/Linux if it weren't for the people (are there more than just RMS ?) whining about it.

If they really felt it was so important to have the GNU label on Linux they should have made the Hurd kernel as popular as Linux, or put effort into Hurd before focusing on the tools. Or they should have added a sentence in the GPL that enforces it. (wink wink nod nod there are thousands of packages released under GPL so why continue the whining?) Because they never stop whining (and because there is a "debate" in the first place) proves my point that it's perfectly fine (if not my duty) to continue referring to it as Linux.

View on HN

I will never understand people who have a kneejerk reaction against activism. Pretty much all of our freedoms have been fought for by activists. Sure, activists might not be media trained or have a big budget for effective and well researched media campaigns, but a little bit of cringe is a small price to pay to put people's rights forward. Yeah, RMS acts weird sometimes but pretty much everything he's been warning us about non-free software has come true. We absolutely need more people like him.

I don't deny this. But I'm perfectly capable to appreciate their work while at the same time holding a deep aversion against their pathetic need to constantly be applauded by the masses, so much that it borders on martyrs syndrome. The constant whining like a spoiled toddler when the applause they receive isn't enough (and it never ever is). There are hundreds of brats in Tech with a fragile inflated ego and a massive twitter following. I absolutely feel sorry for them because they'll never be able to see themselves for what they are.

It doesn't matter their cause, their background or their political leaning, it always turns out that if they stay around long enough they are all exposed for their manipulative personalities, their psychotic need to be constantly onstage and idolized.

Sure some people have unnecessarily big egos and people who are public figures are already preselected for that.

But at least activists are working towards increasing our freedoms, as opposed to the people who have even bigger egos, are addicted to having their egos stroked and are working towards reducing your freedoms and owning everything (Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg etc.)

sure. I don't applaud these other despicables either, fwiw they should be stripped of their assets exceeding 1 Billion (the minute they hit that mark) or they should be fair game to the masses to hunt them down. But hey that's just my opinion as an absolute nobody so it doesn't matter what I think (luckily). In contrast all these people with a god-syndrome think their opinions matter and their sh1t doesn't stink. It is up to nobodies like us to bring them back to reality so they don't ever forget that this isn't some religious cult they're running.

And especially RMS! I happen to have enjoyed his company at a dinner after a linux conf in the 90ies so my opinions about him are extremely harsh. The man is in love with himself and will be happy to walk over anyone younger or more junior than him and he will also not give credit to others. Maybe he changed after all these years but last I heard he was ousted from the FSF for some horrid behavior?

As I said I'm perfectly capable of holding multiple opinions about RMS because it's important to separate the man from his work. But I refuse to answer demands of stroking his ego when what I actually want to do is ask him a series of question about his upbringing and his fragile personality and his relationship to his mother who sadly never slapped him or the dad who he probably never knew.

These days activism is more like: think what I tell you or else you are evil and unworthy of participation in society. So yeah, people are kind of tired of it. It's basically like participating in Soviet-era public ceremonies or regurgitating official party lines. Not that that's what's going on with the "GNU/Linux" controversy, but it's the general phenomenon.

Also, there's an older, I think better, sensibility around still: that controversies should be left to those directly involved with them. Let the distribution maintainers, the FSF, and Linux Foundation sort this out amongst themselves. It's really not my place to be involved in this decision anyway. Not that I don't love sharing my unsolicited two cents online, but some people don't even like that.

People asking for democracy are attacking the monarch!

People asking for the end of slavery are attacking cotton producers!

People asking for a 5 day work week are attacking the factory owner!

This argument is thrown around every time activists are demanding change and is as old as activism itself. It's not a thing that happens "these days" any more than it has happened before.

So indeed, you are more interested in shaming people into submission than in persuading them through discourse. Again, why are you surprised that people aren't so eager to deal with you?

You might think your cause is righteous, okay good. You want to play hardball, fine. But don't be surprised when people don't love you as you condemn them and equate them to slave owners and dictators. You can either treat people like enemies or like friends to be persuaded. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you feel that I'm shaming you, then I must ask what am I shaming you about?

People just have kneejerk reactions against being told what to do and what to think, in general. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. It is what it is.

Yeah that's the part I don't understand. Don't the people care whether what they are doing is right or wrong? Don't they have any morals or beliefs on their own? If you decide to do the opposite as you are told, then the other person is controlling you as much as the person who does what they are told.

You mean you want people to think? What a concept! :)

What freedoms am I missing when Linux is not called GNU/Linux?

I was replying to a person who decided to do the opposite because they were told to do something by "whiny activists".

The point of the article that started the thread is that using "GNU/Linux" has become now useful, not in order to acknowledge the activism, but in order to distinguish the distributions/operating systems that are based on the Linux kernel together with the GNU glibc and the GNU base utilities from the distributions/operating systems that use the Linux kernel together with another C standard library and with other base utilities.

The reason for making this distinction is that there are many applications which depend on specific glibc features or on the features of certain GNU utilities and not only on the more widespread POSIX/UNIX standards.

Therefore, it may be useful to be precise and say whether a "Linux" is also a "GNU/Linux", or not, because this may be essential to determine whether a certain application is supported or not on that system.

gnuplot is not part of GNU

well spotted ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com