Hacker News Reader

Comment by chatman | Hacker News Reader

"GNU/Linux" is the OS, "Linux" is just the kernel. The GNU project is responsible for many of the crucial parts responsible for making a complete OS, save for the kernel. Abbreviating the OS with "Linux", for the sake of convenience, should be avoided in order to give the GNU project its due credit.

View on HN

That's not how OS naming works.

Historically, naming rights for an OS go to whoever actually puts together and distributes the complete system. For instance, if a workstation company licensed Unix from AT&T and ported it to their workstation, they got to name that OS whatever they wanted. A couple examples of this were Uniplus+, which was UniSoft's Unix, and 386/ix, which was Interactive System Corporation's Unix. Both were Unix systems--they used a Unix kernel and Unix utilities--but that wasn't their names. Half the fun working at a Unix workstation company in the early '80s was thinking of a neat name for your Unix port. :-)

For the complete systems distributed by Canonical, Red Hat, and the like, they are the ones who get to name the operating systems that they distribute. Ubuntu calls their OS the "Ubuntu operating system". Red Hat calls their OS "Red Hat Enterprise Linux".

Yes, they are also GNU systems, but if we want to be historically accurate, the most correct way to view this would be to view "GNU system" and "GNU/Linux" as specifications for a specific Unix-like userspace and for an OS that runs the GNU system on a Linux kernel, respectively. The Ubuntu operating system complies with the GNU system specification and is a GNU/Linux system, but it is named Ubuntu operating system.

Thanks, I didn't expect to ever read anything insightful about this debate.

While this inversion of the usual prescriptivist argument for "GNU/Linux" is amusing and interesting, I feel it's worth stating the more general objection as well:

It's called Linux because we call it Linux. That is how language works. It doesn't matter about the official name or the etymology, if the population typically uses a certain term for something, that is the "correct" term.

Now there are lots of arguments for preferring an atypical term in some situations. Official names in more formal contexts, genderless nouns to avoid excluding people, and indeed "GNU/Linux" to promote the GNU project. But these are choices we make, and are not something to be forced on people who don't necessarily agree with the reasoning behind them.

No one is forcing anyone. It is just a courtesy, not a binding, to acknowledge the group who built the OS ground up.

The GNU project had built all pieces of the OS, before convincing Linus Torvalds to release his proprietary kernel code in the GPL license.

The Linux kernel was never proprietary.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux, here is the relevant part:

"Since the initial release of its source code in 1991, it has grown from a small number of C files under a license prohibiting commercial distribution to its state in 2009 of over 370 megabytes of source under the GNU General Public License."

OK, technically correct, but access to source code and a restriction on commercial distribution is not what people usually associate with propietary software. When you say propietary what most of us think is Linus releasing binary-only versions of Linux in 1991, which is false. I think "almost free software" is a much more accurate description, and a lot less flamey.

And by the way, the GPL was first written in 1989, so you could hardly argue that in 1991 many people understood how free software should work or which are the longterm consequences of using a certain license for your hobby project. Cut Linus some slack, he released source code and eventually used the GPL, right?

> "GNU/Linux" is the OS, "Linux" is just the kernel.

It's great we're talking about the kernel codebase then!

The argot is what it is. "g'nuu slash linux" is such a horribly awkward thing to say that it will never, ever supplant the two syllable short form.

This distraction has been done to death, how about discusing what the article was actually about

Hey, I use Busybox/Linux you insensitive clod!

> "GNU/Linux" is the OS, "Linux" is just the kernel. The GNU project is responsible for many of the crucial parts responsible for making a complete OS

So is X.org, the KDE project, the Mozilla project, and a number of other projects which aren't as well-known. So should it be X.org/KDE/Mozilla/OpenSSH/GNU/Linux? If not, why not?

Because X, KDE, GNOME etc. were all built using the core tools that GNU project provides. Most notably the gcc compiler.

The Android system uses the Linux kernel, but should people refer to the OS as "Linux" or "Android"? I think even calling that as Linux is fine, as long as people understand its just the kernel that they are calling out. The OS is either GNU/Linux (desktop/server OS) or Android (the mobile phone OS).

GNU's core tools were built with non-GNU stuff like Vim and valgrind, but you don't see them getting special mention either. And much of the modern userland requires, say, Python to function! No mention there, either. The idea that part of the userland deserves a special mention (but no, not the rest, just GNU) is over-privileged attention-seeking.

The convention has generally become that Linux-kernel operating systems are called "Linux". But you have options if this offends you so. If you don't like that, Debian's over there and willing to play along, and if you really don't like it, I hear that GNU has a kernel of their own rattling somewhere around gnu.org.

So we are using GNU/OpenBSD too? because of gcc ?

Years ago, I used to joke with friends starting with ubuntu, that they were using really adobe/nvidia/broadcom/micrososoft/oracle/etc/gnu/linux.

well I certainly didn't use gcc (pcc/clang). does that apply to me too?

you GNU terrorists are funny, thinking you can go and claim others ppl work by attaching "GNU" prefix to a projects name and lying to everyone how it _is_ gnu. Unfortunately Linux is only GPL2 (and that too was a mistake as we can see from the above example - Linus said something about it too as I recall).

GNU terrorist? Look up the history of the operating system and you'll find that GNU and Linux kernel were both equally responsible for putting together a free and open source operating system. Before the GNU project, Linux kernel was on proprietary license.

So by that reasoning FreeBSD is turning from GNU/FreeBSD to Apple/FreeBSD as they change from gcc to clang?

Don't be ridiculous.

[edit]: spelling

Reply on news.ycombinator.com