Hacker News Reader

My car engine is a Volkswagen and the entire vehicle consists of parts made by various other companies, but do you see anyone going around saying "I have a Brembo/Volkswagen" just because Volkswagen used some Brembo parts to build the car?

Look, GNU is super important and they have done amazing things for Free software. I heavily support them and the work they have done. However, I don't force people that use my Open Source software in their products to put the name of my organization at the front of their product name or label just because they use it to develop their product and neither do most other manufacturers of other products in the world.

Using Linux as a generic label to represent all the Linux based Distros out there is not unreasonable just as using "Volkswagen" isn't. There is no need to cram GNU down peoples throats and force them to write and/or say "GNU/Linux" anytime they refer generically to Linux. If you feel that way, at least be consistent with everything you own and start refering to it by both the components its built from as well as the product itself.

I wish there was a Linux distribution with the FreeBSD userland, just to bring up on occasions like this.

Linux Kernel with BSD userland?

(https://www.mirbsd.org/)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirOS_BSD)

It's mostly OpenBSD. I haven't used it. I do know the BSD man pages are better (sometimes very very much better) than the Linux equivalents.

> and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX

GNU defaults to NOT being POSIX-compliant, which makes most of GNU software a PITA to build on platforms which default to being POSIX-compliant.

Also, except for emacs, GNU is a failure. gcc we use today is an egcs fork, and the Linux kernel could have worked just as well with BSD userland.

This argument is, and has always been, ridiculous. The GNU user land is no more an operating system than the Linux kernel or the K desktop environment. It's just one component of a larger software system which most refer to by the convenient moniker of "Linux".

It is disappointing to see "GNU/Linux" comments consistently harassed. Consider the history.

The GNU project was conceived in 1983 to create a full free (as in freedom) operating system. This operating system combined many different projects (for example, X), in addition to creating its own components. Before Linux, it had one troubled component - the GNU Hurd, which was its kernel. Torvalds developed Linux (the kernel) in 1990 and released it under the GNU GPLv2 in 1991, which completed the GNU operating system by providing a working, stable kernel. The entire operating system was, and still is (except when GNU is not present, such as Android), GNU. The term GNU/Linux was used to give credit to both Torvalds and the GNU project. The term just as easily could have been "GNU/Linux/X" (and in fact that was used by the Yggdrasil distribution).

Linux, as it was conceived, is a kernel. GNU, as it was conceived, is an operating system. There is an important distinction there.

Fast forward a couple decades. Many people, in an effort to shorten the name "GNU/Linux", simply dropped the GNU portion and referred to the entire Operating System as "Linux". Also combine this with projects such as Android, which use Linux without GNU, and therefore are not GNU/Linux. Everyone has come to know any operating system that uses the Linux kernel simply by the name of "Linux".

Is that correct? Well, that depends on how the term is used. "Linux distribution" is certainly correct --- if your operating system uses the Linux kernel, then yes, distributes Linux. But to consider Linux an operating system is incorrect from both a project and historical standpoint, because it is not --- it is a Linux-based operating system. But to call an entire operating system "Linux" is saying that the entire system that you are using is part of the Linux project. On the other hand, calling your operating system "GNU", as long as it uses GNU, is correct, because GNU was always developed to be an operating system - a collection of components.

So given the history, why is the term "GNU/Linux" ridiculous? Why is the term "Linux" to refer to an entire operating system not ridiculous? Because that is the most popular term to refer to a Linux-based operating system? And given your statement

> The GNU user land is no more an operating system than the Linux kernel or the K desktop environment.

it would seem GNU is just as fitting to be used as Linux. So again, why is such a notion ridiculous?

It is what it is, history. Calling it GNU/Linux might have been appropriate when GNU was such a big part of the system. It isn’t any more. Linux, on the other hand, is the biggest open source project in existence. Saying those two are equal is ridiculous.

The argument is not about equality; Linux is by far much larger in nearly every regard than GNU is. The argument is toward correctness. No matter how small GNU is, "GNU" describes an entire operating system, which is comprised of many components, some maintained by GNU/FSF, others not.

Let's say that I released an operating system called "Mike OS", which used Linux, portions of GNU, etc. My only contribution to the operating system, aside from packaging, was a simple script to handle package management/configuration. Well, it's still "Mike OS".

I think much of the confusion comes from people thinking of GNU in terms of projects that the FSF personally maintains. As stated by http://www.gnu.org/: "GNU is a Unix-like operating system that is free software—it respects your freedom. You can install Linux-based versions of GNU which are entirely free software."

No. GNU + Linux does not make an operating system. That’s a lie. In any modern distribution GNU packages are just optional components. They fit in a larger framework that makes an operating system, just like everything else. Stallman’s threshold for GNU/* is apparently just linking against glibc.

When GNU makes an actual distro, they can call it GNU/Linux.

Mike, what type of computer do you own? Does it use Intel hardware? Maybe it was created by Dell or Lenovo or somebody else? When someone asks you what type of computer you own do you say "It's an Intel/Dell" or "It's an Intel/Lenovo"? Or would you just say "It's a Dell"?

The term "computer" encompasses a wide variety of components. Had I purchased a PC from some specific company, such as Dell, stating that I have a "Dell computer" would indeed be accurate (stating "I have a Dell" is not technically correct; Dell is a company, not a computer). In a similar since, saying I use "Gentoo", "Trisquel", "Ubuntu", "Arch", etc is accurate.

I built my PC using hardware I purchased separately. I do see your argument - if someone asks me "what type of computer do you own", I would not list each hardware component individually. The problem is - that question is terribly vague. What type of computer do I own? Well, it's classified as a PC. Generally, when someone asks that question, they are looking for a specific company name. When I respond that I built my own, that answers their question.

If someone asks "what type of processor", I would then respond "I use an AMD-based system". In that sense, if someone asked what kernel I use, I would respond "I use a Linux-based system" --- they were specific enough to inquire about a specific component, so I would respond in such a way that answers their question.

"What operating system do you use?" Technically, I use GNU, and to those who understand what GNU is, I respond just like that --- "GNU". For those who may be unfamiliar with GNU, I will state "GNU with Linux" --- the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel. If I used GNU with another kernel, it is still GNU. Linux is one component of my operating system.

That said my display server, window manager, text editor, etc are also all useful components of my operating system. I would not say I use "GNU/X/Xmonad/Vim", simply because that is not a distinction commonly requested. Perhaps one day, if Wayland becomes popular, "GNU/Linux/X" would be useful/necessary.

gcc would be the principle counterargument. At a more fundamental level, the GNU project provided the philosophical foundations for the Linux kernel to develop. GNU is among the principle reasons (the AT&T lawsuit being another) that we're living in a Linux rather than BSD centric world. I suspect that the free software model of the GPL also mattered -- BSD/MIT licensing have their place, but they're not a match for the OS/kernel as a whole, at least not at this stage of the game (in an earlier period they did help establish UNIX as an industry standard, and spreading standards and reference implementations is a key element of these licenses, hence: X11, Apache, BIND).

As I find the GNU userland superior to other tools, I also find that it's worth consideration.

And in all cases, I find it's sufficient to acknowledge the FSF's contributions to the environment I use and prefer. It's GNU/Linux.

I’m using KDE/Linux.