thelinuxlink.net

I just call it Linux. I know the Linux kernel wouldn't be around if it weren't for the GNU tools but it also wouldn't be around if it werent for the millions of contributors and and noone calls John Doe/GNU/Linux (instead of John Doe replace every linux contributor). This is a community effort and yes we needed the GNU tools but it doesn't mean we have to put it in the name, plus it doesn't sound as cool

I understand GNU makes up more of the OS than the Linux kernel does, but calling it GNU/Linux is just ridiculous to me. You don't call Mac OS "Aqua/Darwin", or some stupid sh!t like that. It's this whole GNU/Linux crap that confuses potential new Linux users. Current users know that when you say Linux, you're referring to both the kernel and the software.

Only when you're without the GNU toolchain to you really begin to appreciate it. That's a personal opinion, of course -- still, I don't refer to it as GNU/Linux. It's too clumsy. However, I also tend to leave "linux" out of my description fairly often, too. I don't say "Redhat Linux" or "Ubuntu Linux" - I just say "redhat" or "ubuntu."

Snarkout wrote:Only when you're without the GNU toolchain to you really begin to appreciate it. That's a personal opinion, of course -- still, I don't refer to it as GNU/Linux. It's too clumsy. However, I also tend to leave "linux" out of my description fairly often, too. I don't say "Redhat Linux" or "Ubuntu Linux" - I just say "redhat" or "ubuntu."

Same with me. The only time I might say GNU/Linux, is when a distribution is actually called GNU/Linux. Debian for example. But most of the time, I just say Debian.

;one of the most hilarious parts of revolution os was a the recording of richard stallman accepting the "linus torvalds award" on behalf of the GNU project. he said, "giving the 'linus torvalds award' to the GNU project is like giving the 'han solo award' to the rebel fleet."

...to which i reply: "there wouldn't have been a rebel fleet without han solo."

;treehead

CptnObvious999 wrote:I just call it Linux. I know the Linux kernel wouldn't be around if it weren't for the GNU tools but it also wouldn't be around if it werent for the millions of contributors and and noone calls John Doe/GNU/Linux (instead of John Doe replace every linux contributor). This is a community effort and yes we needed the GNU tools but it doesn't mean we have to put it in the name, plus it doesn't sound as cool

Wasn't Linux developed on Minix? I'm not sure GNU tools were actually used to develop the kernel. Maybe we should call it Minix/GNU/Linux?

I'm not saying the OS doesn't owe a debt to the GNU project. What it comes down to is Linus produced a kernel, and the GNU project has yet to do so.

Gomer_X wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:I just call it Linux. I know the Linux kernel wouldn't be around if it weren't for the GNU tools but it also wouldn't be around if it werent for the millions of contributors and and noone calls John Doe/GNU/Linux (instead of John Doe replace every linux contributor). This is a community effort and yes we needed the GNU tools but it doesn't mean we have to put it in the name, plus it doesn't sound as cool

Wasn't Linux developed on Minix? I'm not sure GNU tools were actually used to develop the kernel. Maybe we should call it Minix/GNU/Linux?

I'm not saying the OS doesn't owe a debt to the GNU project. What it comes down to is Linus produced a kernel, and the GNU project has yet to do so.

The GNU project actually has created their own kernel.

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html

Debian even has a port: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

CptnObvious999 wrote:I just call it Linux. I know the Linux kernel wouldn't be around if it weren't for the GNU tools but it also wouldn't be around if it werent for the millions of contributors and and noone calls John Doe/GNU/Linux (instead of John Doe replace every linux contributor). This is a community effort and yes we needed the GNU tools but it doesn't mean we have to put it in the name, plus it doesn't sound as cool

Depends on the situation, I mostly say Linux, because the GNU part confuses people, but when I can I do say GNU/Linux, because when I look at history I do kind of understand RMS a little. Think about it, you start writing an OS for the sake of other people's freedom to share and change the software and then a few years later some computer science student comes around writes a kernel and steals your credit. I don't think it's fair to give Linus all the credit, that's not to say that I hate him, because I don't.

Gomer_X wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:I just call it Linux. I know the Linux kernel wouldn't be around if it weren't for the GNU tools but it also wouldn't be around if it werent for the millions of contributors and and noone calls John Doe/GNU/Linux (instead of John Doe replace every linux contributor). This is a community effort and yes we needed the GNU tools but it doesn't mean we have to put it in the name, plus it doesn't sound as cool

Wasn't Linux developed on Minix? I'm not sure GNU tools were actually used to develop the kernel. Maybe we should call it Minix/GNU/Linux?

I'm not saying the OS doesn't owe a debt to the GNU project. What it comes down to is Linus produced a kernel, and the GNU project has yet to do so.

Yes Linus did use Minix while developing Linux, but he indeed used a lot of GNU tools, he says so himself in his book called "Just For Fun", and in a swedish documentary similar to Revolution OS called "The Code".