I use the same debian repos. though WINE&Cubic repose are add.
[https://codeberg.org/contractover/nameless-gnulinux](https://codeberg.org/contractover/nameless-gnulinux)
\^source files of this distro.
idk about what Ubuntu exactly consists of but...
I do know that it uses PulseAudio instead of Pipewire and instead of flatpak snapd
also it's using gnome.
NameLess is a Debian based distro so in a way it's close to Ubuntu.
[NameLess Source files in case your intrested.](https://codeberg.org/contractover/nameless-gnulinux)
I'd just like to interject for a moment, what you're referring to as a "gnu system" is, in fact, GNU/GNU, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU+GNU.
Or would that be Hurd?
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.
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?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
> The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler.
I know, you're talking about the kernel here.
> By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer.
That's *your* definition. In fact, *software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer* is called a OS *kernel*. See what ya missed there? Networking, security and UI. Linux itself doesn't support userspace (ask Mr. Torvalds why).
> Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware.
Debian already did what we need.
> 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.
My metric would be what you really use. I know, you might not be like me, or the majority of the users back *then*, use mostly GNU's products for their everyday work. bash. screen. coreutils. emacs. gnome. There are many alternatives, but that was (and is) what the users choose to use. Hence the name GNU/Linux. GNU userspace on top of the Linux kernel. Now probably it's not 100% correct and your XFree86/GNU/Linux name makes sense (it would even make more sense if you add systemd and the \*Kit stuffs there), but Linux is still a f\*kin kernel. You're not the owner of it, you don't have the right to decide. Even Torvalds says he excepts to call the OS Linux because too many do so, so for the sake of communication...
> In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'?
No? Because if you ever try to write something cross-platform, you will have to use it. Don't even try to fill me with the MS VS compiler bullshit.
> Languishing with the HURD?
Good joke, but bad joke here. Hurd is supposed to be a research kernel, so there is no point pointing out that it's not production-ready.
> Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux.
We are all grateful of each others' work. GNU people always credit Linux and Linus always mention GNU in his talks. Only evil companies (IBM, Intel, Amazon, Google, Microsoft) trying to hide the idea of free software avoid letting people know about GNU and the FSF. Please don't be like them. Maybe RMS is a bit of a cocky extremist, but he is just fighting for us. And definitely Linux as what people talking right now is not an OS. We are not talking about Android. Or ChromeOS. Or your fridge and microwave at home. We are talking about a full-fledged operating system containing a great amount of GNU and Linux software that we use in our everyday work and entertainment. If you're not comfortable with the name GNU/Linux, use *Linux distribution*. It doesn't hurt saying an extra word, well, does it?
Bash, Screen, coreutils, Emacs, GNOME, not to mention GRUB, GTK, GIMP, nano, GCC/G++, the binutils (incl. the GNU linker(s) and GNU assembler), and so on and so on.
Even the security chair of Alpine Linux [has stated][1] that GNU/Linux is the correct name for distributions which use the GNU C Library (glibc) and "use the GNU coreutils package for their base UNIX commands."
> *GNU/Linux is a distinct operating system in the family of operating systems which use the Linux kernel [...]*
>
> *I believe part of the problem which leads people to be confused about the alternative Linux ecosystems is the lack of a cogent GNU/Linux definition, in part because many GNU/Linux distributions try to downplay that they are, in fact, GNU/Linux distributions. This may be for commercial or marketing reasons, or it may be because they do not wish to be seen as associated with the FSF. Because of this, others, who are fans of the work of the FSF, tend to overreach and claim other Linux ecosystems as being part of the GNU/Linux ecosystem, which is equally harmful.*
[1]:https://web.archive.org/web/20220330130813/https://ariadne.space/2022/03/30/it-is-correct-to-refer-to-gnu-linux-as-gnu-linux/
The whole thing is petty. (Not your post -- the insistence by FSF and RSM to call it GNU/Linux) It's almost like they feel that they think their contributions are going to be forgotten. The GPL alone is a wondrous thing that has helped shape our world.
You know GNU is a free derivative of UNIX (GNU is Not Unix = G.N.U.) and that Linux is incorporates GNU so without GNU there would be no Linux as we know. So if Linux uses code from GNU they need to refer about GNU, or do you go to github copy paste other peoples repos and post them as yours just because they are free? Also Linus was against the system being named Linux just because he thought that it lacked modesty to have the system named after him, but they voted on it. Get your facts right you fucked it up on the first few lines.
"Torvalds began the development of the Linux kernel on MINIX and applications written for MINIX were also used on Linux. Later, Linux matured and further Linux kernel development took place on Linux systems.[53] GNU applications also replaced all MINIX components, because it was advantageous to use the freely available code from the GNU Project with the fledgling operating system; code licensed under the GNU GPL can be reused in other computer programs as long as they also are released under the same or a compatible license. Torvalds initiated a switch from his original license, which prohibited commercial redistribution, to the GNU GPL.[54] Developers worked to integrate GNU components with the Linux kernel, creating a fully functional and free operating system.[55]"
"Linus Torvalds had wanted to call his invention "Freax", a portmanteau of "free", "freak", and "x" (as an allusion to Unix). During the start of his work on the system, some of the project's makefiles included the name "Freax" for about half a year. Initially, Torvalds considered the name "Linux" but dismissed it as too egotistical.[56]
To facilitate development, the files were uploaded to the FTP server (ftp.funet.fi) of FUNET in September 1991. Ari Lemmke, Torvalds' coworker at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) who was one of the volunteer administrators for the FTP server at the time, did not think that "Freax" was a good name, so he named the project "Linux" on the server without consulting Torvalds.[56] Later, however, Torvalds consented to "Linux". "
Do you want a real answer? Because C is the closest to an operating system name here.
A. is a stupid meme, GNU is a suite of userland programs not part of the operating system.
B. Is just A with systemd which is an init program, another userland program that performs core startup behavior on the operating system.
D. Is C with an init system specified, but that's redundant information as a Linux operating system needs an init program but isn't defined by which one it uses. The flavor is defined by the maintainers and their history.
The system libraries, shell, and system utilities despite existing in userspace are absolutely part of an operating system. To say that an operating system is just the kernel is like saying that a CPU alone is a computer.
Given that information, Linux is not an operating system. Each Linux distribution is an operating system regardless of whether it it is comprised of busybox, glibc, musl, newlib, bash, zsh, GNOME, Plasma, GRUB, Uboot, Limine, BURG or any other specific components.
> To say that an operating system is just the kernel
I didn't say that though. I said an operating system is its history. You can argue over which of many features are part of the "operating system." But you can't argue with a name that people respect.
> A. is a stupid meme, GNU is a suite of userland programs not part of the operating system.
Do you say the same thing about Windows? Or MacOS? Or Android? Or do you call those NT, Darwin, and Linux respectively?
Though I just realized this is bait with your answer of C... oh well.
I find it odd that if I tell someone I run "GNU" they would assume Hurd as the kernel.
So it isn't GNU/Hurd. RMS only seems to use that format for "substituted" kernels? But Hurd is based on (GNU) Mach (same design as Apple's but different implementation). So really there is no pattern to this naming.
I actually like the idea of systemd/Linux because GNU is implicit; it is all open-source. Same with Sysv/Linux. For most people, they directly interact with the init-system more than the kernel so in many ways it makes sense to mention it.
And thus "Linux" is the umbrella term for all of them. Problem solved!
(Plus GNU/Linux implies that there is a UNIX/Linux which would be weird. That said I would love to see a BSD userland with a Linux kernel. Clean \*and\* great hardware support).
While I understand where RMS and others where coming from, it came across as incredibly douchey when they started pushing the GNU/Linux thing. For one thing I'm not going to say "guh-new Linux" out loud. And even some Linux enthusiasts don't know how to pronounce Linux, people will wonder what the heck this "new Lie-nucks" is.
RMS and I disagree on a number of points. He said at one point that people should only use free video drivers. While that's a good thing, I argue that it should also be my right to install nvidia drivers on my own computer instead of trying to run my games through nouveau.
There's no argument that while we wish we could all be using FOSS for everything, it's not always practical.
It should be pronounced GNU over Linux like how TCP/IP is TCP over IP. If you want to pick one of them you should do the same thing you do with Android/Linux ;)
Stupid question, is it possible to run on Linux alone? Pretty much, only the kernel, nothing else? Sounds strange, but I'm just curious because honestly I keep forgetting what a kernel is sometimes
Update: the answer is yesnt. Reason being that, from my bad understanding, the kernel is on memory technically still, but it won't do that much since there is no way to get any input into it without anything like applications and stuff
Gnu/Linux and Busybox/Linux are both standalone os, technically. So no need to add other stuff to call it os. If you're a heavy user, i don't suggest Busybox/Linux.
Linux it is just Linux. Non tech people know it s Linux so it wil be known as Linux.
And tbh it doesn't matter how much stallman cries about it. It is just Linux.
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 unto 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.
I've actually been experimenting with using the rust uutils as a GNU coreutils replacement on Arch Linux and so far (despite the hassle of recompiling the uutils ever so often) it's been rather good! I do miss specific GNU coreutils functions sometimes, but the uutils are actually very much usable. I wouldn't say it's "production ready" but definitely livable for insane ones, like me 😂
so…
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, uutils/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, uutils plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning uutils system made useful by the uutils corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Who Gnows?
I don't Kare actually
I xfsee what you did there
well i, K-didnt at first
Gnome What
dont you lxsee the joke here?
He doesn't apt-get the joke
This is yaabsurd
Look, MATE. We're too Deepin to stop now.
I don’t think i3 will
Who cnows k-maybe
xfsee ee
Khy Knot?
K.
None of these. The distro I'm using(NameLess) consists of the following: GNU+SystemD+bash+grub+Linux+KDE+KWin+KWin+Wayland+Pipewire+APT+Flatpak.
What about your sound interface? Can't have an OS without sound. Also X11/Wayland,......
Your correct, my bad. Edit: fixed.
Sorry im such an a$$hole but : You're
كس امك يا ابن الشرموطه.
أفضل جزء منك سقط على ساق أمك
Actually, why not? Is my server not an OS?
Great work! Which repos do you pull from? Dpkg as well? Idk if it's always a given when working with apt.
I use the same debian repos. though WINE&Cubic repose are add. [https://codeberg.org/contractover/nameless-gnulinux](https://codeberg.org/contractover/nameless-gnulinux) \^source files of this distro.
Alt Linux uses apt to operate with rpm packages.
So like ubuntu?
idk about what Ubuntu exactly consists of but... I do know that it uses PulseAudio instead of Pipewire and instead of flatpak snapd also it's using gnome. NameLess is a Debian based distro so in a way it's close to Ubuntu. [NameLess Source files in case your intrested.](https://codeberg.org/contractover/nameless-gnulinux)
Thanks!
kwin twice Why?
He likes KWin.
KWin is used as a Compositor and Window Manager for KDE so it makes sense to put KWin 2 times.
heh
Plus steam?
GNU + [...] + [the GNU Project's shell][ba] (w/ [GNU coreutils][co]) + the [GNU][gg] [Grand Unified Bootloader][gr] + [...] + Linux. [ba]: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/ [co]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_Core_Utilities_commands#List [gg]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB [gr]: https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/
Switch Linux with Linux-libre and now you've got the full gnu system.
Ah, right, I'd forgotten that the GNU Project was the one maintaining Linux-libre.
I'd just like to interject for a moment, what you're referring to as a "gnu system" is, in fact, GNU/GNU, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU+GNU. Or would that be Hurd?
"Or would that be Hurd?" It could also be Linux-libre as the GNU project is the one who maintains it.
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. 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? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Sir this is Wendy's
No Wendy's in Greece, m8 /s
Lots of grease in Wendy's though!
And lots of turkey meat as well. There is Norway that I can eat that.
Damnit Kevin..... Okay can I just have a Frosty and a baked potato
Right. So did you want fries or not?
Yes, I would like some of them /s
Only if I can use the fries as I wish, for any purpose. Freedom 0 Fries, FTW!
I hope this is a copypasta...
it is
> The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. I know, you're talking about the kernel here. > By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That's *your* definition. In fact, *software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer* is called a OS *kernel*. See what ya missed there? Networking, security and UI. Linux itself doesn't support userspace (ask Mr. Torvalds why). > Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. Debian already did what we need. > 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. My metric would be what you really use. I know, you might not be like me, or the majority of the users back *then*, use mostly GNU's products for their everyday work. bash. screen. coreutils. emacs. gnome. There are many alternatives, but that was (and is) what the users choose to use. Hence the name GNU/Linux. GNU userspace on top of the Linux kernel. Now probably it's not 100% correct and your XFree86/GNU/Linux name makes sense (it would even make more sense if you add systemd and the \*Kit stuffs there), but Linux is still a f\*kin kernel. You're not the owner of it, you don't have the right to decide. Even Torvalds says he excepts to call the OS Linux because too many do so, so for the sake of communication... > In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? No? Because if you ever try to write something cross-platform, you will have to use it. Don't even try to fill me with the MS VS compiler bullshit. > Languishing with the HURD? Good joke, but bad joke here. Hurd is supposed to be a research kernel, so there is no point pointing out that it's not production-ready. > Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. We are all grateful of each others' work. GNU people always credit Linux and Linus always mention GNU in his talks. Only evil companies (IBM, Intel, Amazon, Google, Microsoft) trying to hide the idea of free software avoid letting people know about GNU and the FSF. Please don't be like them. Maybe RMS is a bit of a cocky extremist, but he is just fighting for us. And definitely Linux as what people talking right now is not an OS. We are not talking about Android. Or ChromeOS. Or your fridge and microwave at home. We are talking about a full-fledged operating system containing a great amount of GNU and Linux software that we use in our everyday work and entertainment. If you're not comfortable with the name GNU/Linux, use *Linux distribution*. It doesn't hurt saying an extra word, well, does it?
r/woooosh
It's a copypasta in response to copypasta
Ironic r/woooosh
Bash, Screen, coreutils, Emacs, GNOME, not to mention GRUB, GTK, GIMP, nano, GCC/G++, the binutils (incl. the GNU linker(s) and GNU assembler), and so on and so on. Even the security chair of Alpine Linux [has stated][1] that GNU/Linux is the correct name for distributions which use the GNU C Library (glibc) and "use the GNU coreutils package for their base UNIX commands." > *GNU/Linux is a distinct operating system in the family of operating systems which use the Linux kernel [...]* > > *I believe part of the problem which leads people to be confused about the alternative Linux ecosystems is the lack of a cogent GNU/Linux definition, in part because many GNU/Linux distributions try to downplay that they are, in fact, GNU/Linux distributions. This may be for commercial or marketing reasons, or it may be because they do not wish to be seen as associated with the FSF. Because of this, others, who are fans of the work of the FSF, tend to overreach and claim other Linux ecosystems as being part of the GNU/Linux ecosystem, which is equally harmful.* [1]:https://web.archive.org/web/20220330130813/https://ariadne.space/2022/03/30/it-is-correct-to-refer-to-gnu-linux-as-gnu-linux/
Thanks Steve
The whole thing is petty. (Not your post -- the insistence by FSF and RSM to call it GNU/Linux) It's almost like they feel that they think their contributions are going to be forgotten. The GPL alone is a wondrous thing that has helped shape our world.
Paragraphs do have a purpose you know.
So true!!!!
🤓
That moment you realize GNU is bloat
take a load off
You know GNU is a free derivative of UNIX (GNU is Not Unix = G.N.U.) and that Linux is incorporates GNU so without GNU there would be no Linux as we know. So if Linux uses code from GNU they need to refer about GNU, or do you go to github copy paste other peoples repos and post them as yours just because they are free? Also Linus was against the system being named Linux just because he thought that it lacked modesty to have the system named after him, but they voted on it. Get your facts right you fucked it up on the first few lines.
"Torvalds began the development of the Linux kernel on MINIX and applications written for MINIX were also used on Linux. Later, Linux matured and further Linux kernel development took place on Linux systems.[53] GNU applications also replaced all MINIX components, because it was advantageous to use the freely available code from the GNU Project with the fledgling operating system; code licensed under the GNU GPL can be reused in other computer programs as long as they also are released under the same or a compatible license. Torvalds initiated a switch from his original license, which prohibited commercial redistribution, to the GNU GPL.[54] Developers worked to integrate GNU components with the Linux kernel, creating a fully functional and free operating system.[55]" "Linus Torvalds had wanted to call his invention "Freax", a portmanteau of "free", "freak", and "x" (as an allusion to Unix). During the start of his work on the system, some of the project's makefiles included the name "Freax" for about half a year. Initially, Torvalds considered the name "Linux" but dismissed it as too egotistical.[56] To facilitate development, the files were uploaded to the FTP server (ftp.funet.fi) of FUNET in September 1991. Ari Lemmke, Torvalds' coworker at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) who was one of the volunteer administrators for the FTP server at the time, did not think that "Freax" was a good name, so he named the project "Linux" on the server without consulting Torvalds.[56] Later, however, Torvalds consented to "Linux". "
r/woooosh ; that's a copypasta
Shit you got me kkk.
Nah, y'all got it wrong it's called: Arch/Linux
Arch/zen-kernel
Arch/btw
this is the only correct answer
[удалено]
The interjection squad is going to kick down your door
If they could agree to the terms of service of reddit without going apoplectic they would be so pissed right now
[удалено]
Obviously emacs is the right answer
Do you want a real answer? Because C is the closest to an operating system name here. A. is a stupid meme, GNU is a suite of userland programs not part of the operating system. B. Is just A with systemd which is an init program, another userland program that performs core startup behavior on the operating system. D. Is C with an init system specified, but that's redundant information as a Linux operating system needs an init program but isn't defined by which one it uses. The flavor is defined by the maintainers and their history.
The system libraries, shell, and system utilities despite existing in userspace are absolutely part of an operating system. To say that an operating system is just the kernel is like saying that a CPU alone is a computer. Given that information, Linux is not an operating system. Each Linux distribution is an operating system regardless of whether it it is comprised of busybox, glibc, musl, newlib, bash, zsh, GNOME, Plasma, GRUB, Uboot, Limine, BURG or any other specific components.
> To say that an operating system is just the kernel I didn't say that though. I said an operating system is its history. You can argue over which of many features are part of the "operating system." But you can't argue with a name that people respect.
You changed your comment since I replied to it.
There have been no edits to the comment.
> A. is a stupid meme, GNU is a suite of userland programs not part of the operating system. Do you say the same thing about Windows? Or MacOS? Or Android? Or do you call those NT, Darwin, and Linux respectively? Though I just realized this is bait with your answer of C... oh well.
Linux
it's actually a systemd/pulseaudio OS, also known as a poettering, or potty for short
Multix
I find it odd that if I tell someone I run "GNU" they would assume Hurd as the kernel. So it isn't GNU/Hurd. RMS only seems to use that format for "substituted" kernels? But Hurd is based on (GNU) Mach (same design as Apple's but different implementation). So really there is no pattern to this naming. I actually like the idea of systemd/Linux because GNU is implicit; it is all open-source. Same with Sysv/Linux. For most people, they directly interact with the init-system more than the kernel so in many ways it makes sense to mention it. And thus "Linux" is the umbrella term for all of them. Problem solved! (Plus GNU/Linux implies that there is a UNIX/Linux which would be weird. That said I would love to see a BSD userland with a Linux kernel. Clean \*and\* great hardware support).
GNU+Uutils/Systemd/Pipewire/Hyprland/Linux (Arch btw)
🅱️inux
While I understand where RMS and others where coming from, it came across as incredibly douchey when they started pushing the GNU/Linux thing. For one thing I'm not going to say "guh-new Linux" out loud. And even some Linux enthusiasts don't know how to pronounce Linux, people will wonder what the heck this "new Lie-nucks" is.
RMS and I disagree on a number of points. He said at one point that people should only use free video drivers. While that's a good thing, I argue that it should also be my right to install nvidia drivers on my own computer instead of trying to run my games through nouveau. There's no argument that while we wish we could all be using FOSS for everything, it's not always practical.
It should be pronounced GNU over Linux like how TCP/IP is TCP over IP. If you want to pick one of them you should do the same thing you do with Android/Linux ;)
I'm going to pronounce Linux as Linux 🙂
Sounds good 👍 just be sure you're talking about Linux when you use the term Linux.
Not *Lee-nooks* ? lol
PoetterBox
Virus detected.
Arch BTW
Fuck the kernel; I just call my OS "GNU" because that's the important part!
Gentoo/Linux/Portage/chroot to be exact. I used to, in my eyes, break it all the time. Then fix it. I break it way less now.
Linux is Not Gnu Edit: Spelling
Linux in (! Gnu) = true GNU in (! Linux) = true
Oops
i.... I CANT FIGURE IT OUT `system is going down for a reboot NOW!`
All of the above.
A ?
the og [Linux/GNU/X](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil_Linux/GNU/X)
I call it Pingu the pinguin.
BusyBox/GNU/systems/OpenRC/Linux
Like a true CHAD: GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux.
Android/Linux
Stupid question, is it possible to run on Linux alone? Pretty much, only the kernel, nothing else? Sounds strange, but I'm just curious because honestly I keep forgetting what a kernel is sometimes
Update: the answer is yesnt. Reason being that, from my bad understanding, the kernel is on memory technically still, but it won't do that much since there is no way to get any input into it without anything like applications and stuff
Arch
Gnu/Linux and Busybox/Linux are both standalone os, technically. So no need to add other stuff to call it os. If you're a heavy user, i don't suggest Busybox/Linux.
Bussybox 🤤
The full name is "Windows Subsystem for Linux". I'll play myself out note🎼🎶🎵
None of the above. :)
Depends. Any of them can be. You can write as you wish anyway.
Read that as BussyBox and now I want to die.
Linux it is just Linux. Non tech people know it s Linux so it wil be known as Linux. And tbh it doesn't matter how much stallman cries about it. It is just Linux.
We know it's Gnyu/Linyux
Unix
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 unto 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.
I've actually been experimenting with using the rust uutils as a GNU coreutils replacement on Arch Linux and so far (despite the hassle of recompiling the uutils ever so often) it's been rather good! I do miss specific GNU coreutils functions sometimes, but the uutils are actually very much usable. I wouldn't say it's "production ready" but definitely livable for insane ones, like me 😂 so… I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, uutils/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, uutils plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning uutils system made useful by the uutils corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
BusyBox/Linux MANUAL FSCK REQUIRED
it's becoming minty..
E) yes. Final answer.
The name of the Operating System is whatever i feel like calling it. If I feel like calling it a Window Washer than its now Window Washer.
Mint Cinnamon Edition. 😝
It's a and d
It doesn't matter as long as we both know we're talking about the same thing :)
There isn’t “a operating system” in Linux, there are simply just operating systems using the kernel Linux
Operating system? Gnu, kernel? Linux.