23
adokce
7y

I just learned that linux shouldn't be called linux but GNU (or GNU/Linux)

I am a student and currently learning programming but also I looked into history and saw this interesting fact.

Basically, there was a guy who wanted to make operating system similar to unix but free to use and distribute. He called it GNU. After few years, it was getting finished but it was missing few parts. One of those parts was kernel. So people glued together this low level kernel called Linux, mid level GNU and some other stuff on top of it. It was first known as GNU/Linux and slowly GNU was kicked out of the name even though 'Linux' - the whole OS constisted more of GNU than Linux kernel.

Doesn't this seem like injustice? Am I wrong somewhere?

Comments
  • 8
    IMO It should've been kept "GNU/Linux", especially since a high percentage of essential packages in any Linux distro IS GNU.

    But people are just lazy and figured calling it "Linux" for short is better.
  • 2
    No you're right. My reasoning for calling linux linux is cause coreutils can be replaced which at that point its no longer GNU/Linux. Its easier and less confusing to new users to just call the whole thing linux instead of saying GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, and there's other tools that replace coreutils functionality with really no difference to a normal enduser
  • 4
    I think you might be a little confused with that history. As I understand it, the GNU project did start before Linux and it did rebuild a number of the applications that were common in Unix... And these applications were (and still can be) used in Unix.

    However, the GNU never finished their actual operating system (or kernel). Linus Torvald (sp?) appeared on the scene with this little hobby project of his. He was trying to write a Unix clone... The project took off.

    GNU and Linux came together when the Linux kernel matured enough for use, but the system needed utility applications. GNU had those applications and they were open source (technically, GNU started what we think of as open source, I think). As such, Linux started using GNU tools. Likewise, GNU started using the Linux kernel.

    There is a GNU Linux, but it exists in the same vain as Ubuntu Linux. GNU Linux is a distribution...
  • 2
    ... Ultimately, while GNUs people and the Linux kernel people had the same spirit, the core of their ideologies conflicted, so while they share each other's work, they are two separate entities.

    I may have some details wrong. I read about this a long while ago.
  • 1
    @ObsidianBlk
    It's actually GNU Herd, not Linux but Unix-like
  • 1
  • 1
    @ObsidianBlk

    But yeah, the whole RMS thing is over the top. I understand his reasoning as to why he calls it GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux), but a. I don't really care and b. He's kind of crazy to begin with, thus I just say "Linux."
  • 0
    Guys. I can't pronounce Gnu in a distinguishable way from "new", and even if I could, everyone would think I was saying "new linux". It's arbitrary and difficult to understand. Linux is fine.
  • 0
    @chadd17
    Gah-new. That's how I pronounce it
  • 3
    Meh. Stallman is a crazy fanatic and I'm lazy. Not to mention that stupid fucking acronym, gnu's not unix, is too fucking dorky even for my dorky ass
  • 1
    This is idiolocical nonsense. Call it whatever you want. GNU/Linux, Linux/GNU, Linux... It doesn't matter at all. The GPL is not about fame. And in the end the core utils are replaceable.
  • 0
    It's called linux because of Linus Torvalds.
  • 0
    I just call it bittersweet OS.

    You know I compiled some crap, edited some configs, even some source files. It's basically Mint with i3 (which is a stupid combo) with a newer kernel.

    But I edited the distro slightly, so I take credit for all of it.
  • 3
    I'm sorry, I couldn't resist
  • 0
  • 1
    In most of the open source software websites ..You can see that it will be tagged as GNU/Linux rather than just Linux..Some people equally respect both..
  • 0
    Gnu is not Unix is a very common recursive acronym. Those are popular among old school hackers who made OpenSource/FreeSoftware what it is today.
  • 2
    The thing which irks me about the GNU/Linux debate is that it feels like a hypocrisy.

    Enforcing the use of a name feels anti-libre to me, because the core principle of libre software is the set of freedoms which come with truly owning and being able to change the product.

    The freedom of giving something a name should rest with the owner. GNU is free and was appropriated by Linux, so it can be called Linux if you want... You own it now, you name it.

    Linux with a bunch of crap on top is called Ubuntu, the word Linux isn't even used on their homepage. Same goes for Android.

    Ubuntu with a mediacenter on top is usually addressed as Kodi... not GNU/Linux/Ubuntu/Kodi.
  • 0
    @jeffalyanak that's untrue that there is no substantial alternative GNU. The thing is, Stallman refuses nonGNU stuff because of its license. GNU and Linux kernel, and as effect, lots of software, are GPLed. Base Unix tools are available, having origin in BSD, with liberal, academic license. Thing is, you can get a BSD-like thing, extend it and close the source code, forbid people playing with it. Like Microsoft did with Visual Studio Code. Or Apple with OS X. On the other hand, RedHat can't close the source code of RHEL. They can license the logo.
  • 0
    @Letmecode GNU/Linux is well known for being highly customizable
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  • 1
  • 1
    @RiderExMachina @Letmecode

    Here have this Free™ Libre™ kitten. Look how cute it is! Yeah, it's totally yours, you own it. Doesn't that feel great, compared to those lease-kittens you pay a monthly sub for?

    Oh, now that you've grown attached to it... I forgot to tell you, you have to call the kitten Cunty McDickbutt.

    In front of everyone you know. Yeah, all the time.
  • 0
    @AlexDeLarge Ayy bro you seem very informed and knowledgeable. Quick question, what you think of Stallman?
Add Comment