Open Ballot: GNU/Linux or Linux?
That dreaded question came up again recently in the magazine. Jason Irwin wrote to us protesting that we had used 'Linux' as opposed to 'GNU/Linux' in our beginners guide; Andrew replied with a robust defense of our usage. The issue was picked up on in the Linux Format forums, and now there's a poll running. Perfect timing, we thought, for our fortnightly open ballot. So, readers, let us know your thoughts in the comments, and do take the time to vote in the poll!
For those looking for a bit of background, you can check out the GNU/Linux FAQ on the GNU site, longer than the constitution of the USA according to Andrew. For the other side of things, there's some handy quotes on this Wikipedia page. Of course, you might think that even discussing this topic again is pointless, in which case we recommend going for a walk in the sunshine.
You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter
Copyright 2012 Future Publishing Limited (company
registered number 2008885), a company registered
in England and Wales whose registered office is at
Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, BA1 2BW, UK
Your comments
If it will keep rms's rants
Unregistered coward (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 5:51pm
If it will keep rms's rants to a minimum, let's call it GNU/Linux or whatever he's into at the moment.
The majority has spoken
Andrew Bowden (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 6:21pm
I have never, ever heard anyone ever refer to Linux as GNU/Linux - except RMS and the odd person writing a letter in Linux Format. Trying to get everyone change to GNU/Linux is an utterly impossible task and it isn't going to happen.
Sorry RMS but you lost and you lost a very very long time ago.
GNU adds more layers of confusion
Beardy Jesse (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 6:24pm
I think that while credit for open source goodness that should go to RMS goes to Linus (simply because of its common naming), it suffers from that most wicked of mistresses - it's not catchy. GNU/Linux is a horrible thing to say and read, and I think that's why people prefer to say and write Linux.
Also, what does GNU stand for again? Gnu Not Unix? As if the plethora of complexity for a new user with distros and desktop environments and packages isn't enough who needs to throw a recursive acronym into the mix!!
Is GNU that important?
Some Guy, I guess (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 6:28pm
Let's see: we can soon replace GCC with Clang. glibc can be easily replaced by FreeBSD's C library. What does that leave -- coreutils? Pur-lease. GNU might've provided some useful components in the early days, but it's becoming less and less relevant.
Yes, but ....
Subscribing Penguin (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 7:04pm
OK, a lot of what is in a Linux core distribution is from GNU source code. But let's all remember that GNU was built on top of BSD code from the late '80s and early '90s. It's the Kernel that made it special; otherwise we'd be asking whether to call it GNU/Minix. Or maybe GNU utilities for Microsoft Windows 3.
A Subscribing Penguin from California
PS. Been following you all for years, and subscribing. Sorry to see Mike move on, but you're all doing great -- Thanks for all the Work!
Call it what you want...
Sean (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 7:15pm
These endless debates are rather pointless and a waste of time and energy: GNU/Linux vs Linux, Gnome vs KDE, eat the Oreo cookie shell before the cream or not, which M&M color is tastiest...COME ON!!!
Let's focus on developing great standards, great usability and great performance for a great OS, call it what you want and move on.
P.S. I prefer eating the Oreo whole with 1 bite and yellow M&M's are the best!
Linux is more catchy
Al (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 7:27pm
Whilst I appreciate the sterling work done by the GNU people I agree that Linux is more catchy.
The general population has enough difficulty appreciating there is an alternative to Microsoft / Apple without being further confused by naming wars.
Perhaps the bit about GNU/Linux being abbreviated in the magazine could be a bit more prominent - having it 3/4 down the right hand column on page 110 in the mag (& in nearly the smallest font in the mag) does not do it justice. I suggest it is included in the "What we do" section on page 3.
Linux is a "trading name" / trademark
Sultan_of_Swing - April 24, 2012 @ 7:38pm
As far as I can see, we've got lots of elements that go into a GNU/Linux operating system which, as Andrew points in LXF157, isn't just limited to GNU and Linux (eg X.org, Qt or Mozilla). It just so happens that when awesome software is brought together under one roof, it just happens to be running on a Linux Kernel.
I think there should always be an official name, and GNU/Linux is fine: it's the GNU software and the Linux Kernel, but I don't have any problem using just "Linux" as a representative name for the entire product. It's the same as Doritos being a trademark Walkers Crisps, who are in turn, a subsidiary of PepsiCo. You don't say Pepsi/Walkers/Doritos when you want some tasty corn snacks, do you?
GNever!
Kansas penguin (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 7:48pm
I have not and will not say "GNU/Linux". It's not really in common usage, it's three syllables longer, and I don't give a flying penguin what RMS thinks about it.
GNU/LINUX is true.........
Amir (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 8:07pm
GNU/LINUX is true.........
Unless courtesy dictates, the GNU can always be silent.
francium_duck - April 24, 2012 @ 8:27pm
Ultimately, I agree with Al.
Just to stir a little though: Given Andrew's(?) expressed discomfort about Ubuntu not using the word Linux overtly in documentation relating to their kernel, it could be argued that similar feelings may be extended legitimately to the lack of the GNU.
Given RMS loads GNU with principles of freedom, and I like those, I just apply the GNU silently (as one does the t in often). That way I don't upset my Mum (especially while she tolerantly adjusts to KDE after a good few years with Gnome 2).
If however it's important to the person I'm talking to, I'd emphasize the GNU.
My 2 cents
heiowge (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 8:51pm
Coca Cola is called Coke. It's not it's proper name, but it's what everyone calls it. They adapted. So should the GNU / Linux nazis. If they want to call it Gnu / , go for it. But don't insist everyone else does.
Then again, it took the Coca Cola company almost 6 decades to adopt "Coke"...
OK, so I copy / Pasted this from the forum thread, but they you lot did the same with the question!
Or, indeed, the g in gnu.
francium_duck - April 24, 2012 @ 8:51pm
Or, indeed, the g in gnu.
Lazy....
Linuxrich - April 24, 2012 @ 9:06pm
I use Linux as a shorthand for GNU/Linux. Sometimes I declare at the start of whatever I'm doing that I've dropped the GNU bit for convenience. I think it's useful to use the full 'proper' title sometimes to serve as a reminder of the range of contributions to Linux but it's too unwieldy, inelegant and just plain labourious to use all the time.
Just call it Ubuntu
Rhakios - April 24, 2012 @ 9:08pm
There, I've said it, now you can get your monthly back-hander from Mark Shuttleworth.
Columbo
francium_duck - April 24, 2012 @ 9:32pm
Clearly, though, it's more important to give voice and discussion to the principles of freedom, as you do, rather than codify them in a name to be intoned by the cognoscenti.
Good work chaps!
Why don't we rename it glinux?
SpaceDustTeapot (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 9:39pm
They should rename it to gLinux? It's short, rolls' off the tong easy and should keep both camps happy.
I agree with francium_duck
SemiAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 10:09pm
The "GNU/" is silent, especially when talking to people who wouldn't have a clue what GNU was anyway.
Linux, I have never said
Anonymous Penguin stikes again! (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 10:21pm
Linux, I have never said GNU/Linux without specifically thinking about it.
Just This Once.....
DaveS - April 24, 2012 @ 11:24pm
'frankly My Dear, I dont give a damn' :)
Keep it simple, ....!
Rodvil (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 11:42pm
Since I started reading about linux that I see this question all the time and I can't even understand why its a question.
Linux is linux... and its already quite complicated to talk about it as it is. Why complicate the name a bit more?
Maybe we should also start writing Linux Mint as: Gnu/Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/Linux Mint
That makes a lot of sense, right?
Can you imagine the nice pub talk:
"- Hey guys, did you check the new wallpaper of the Gnu/Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/Linux Mint 12?
- Yeah, its great. And I just love how Gnu/Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/Linux Mint is so user friendly."
Argument is invalid
Maverick Steel (not verified) - April 24, 2012 @ 11:45pm
It's Linux all the way for me. I don't understand most of the arguments for the GNU /. The 'credit argument' is a little arbitrary. As Andrew pointed out in the magazine, it might as well be GNU/KDE/X/.../Linux; and Some Guy, I Guess mentioned that many GNU softwares can be replaced with non-GNU softwares. Between different distros, the commonality is the linux kernel (or possibly the Ubuntu kernel)
The 'origin, history, and purpose' argument doesn't make any sense either, since new users won't know why GNU/linux is different to linux; and established users will likely think about freedom (on some level) when they think of linux anyway, and will probably know something about GNU's contribution. The argument is predicated on GNU being the be-all-and-end-all of software freedom, which just isn't the case. Perhaps it was in the past, and RMS et al. most certainly deserve some recognition for that; but freedom is an idea that permeates tens of non-GNU licenses, and tens of thousands of pieces of software.
Homonyms, man
Cody (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 12:29am
Saying GNU/Linux is apt to make people think they need to abandon the old Linux for this new one you keep going on about.
Politically Correct
Shawn (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 4:22am
The problem of getting people to say GNU/Linux is akin to that of getting people to say he/she by the proponents of politically correct language. While the idea behind the switch in usage is perhaps ethically sound, the proposed replacement is simply inelegant and cumbersome to use. Such assertions that the linguistic change is ethically necessary are bound to fail because language almost universally moves toward shortening the number of characters/symbols necessary to express a particular idea.
Contently Neutral.
Eages (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 5:54am
Free vs Open Source; dpkg vs rpm; vi vs emacs; GNOME vs KDE. There's a lot of fragmentation in the community and the GNU/Linux vs Linux debate fits right in. I am extremely appreciative of GNU's contribution to Linux (or Linux's contribution to GNU if you prefer) and I acknowledge the right to use either "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" when referring to the operating system.
Just like with most things (GNU/)Linux, personal preference decides what you use. Citing practicality or correctness can justify personal preferences but we each have different stances on such matters. Freedom of choice appeals to us - that's why many are using Linux in the first place. RMS seems arrogant - pushing "GNU/Linux" so hard but he's just promoting what is more correct (and less practical). Instead of getting caught up with superiority complexes, we should all take pride in having a wide array of choices - even in the non-software matters.
TL;DR: I say "Linux" for informal situations and at least once mention "GNU/Linux" for formal situations.
Pointless
Spegal66 (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 6:43am
This is a tired old argument that is frankly very pointless.
The real issue is great software which enables you to do what you like with it and works on old hardware too.
Lets focus on Linux's postive benefits than on tired negativeism.
not valid anymore
where_are_my_stickers (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 7:22am
How valid is this argument today...
Linux (or GNU/Linux) consists of so many contributions.
Sure when it all begun it was the GNU toolchain which was used to build the first Linux kernel and there was not much else.
Today GNU as well as the kernel are just a part of something much bigger.
Are we going to call it GNU/REDHAT/NOVELL/CANONICAL/SUN/MICROSOFT/LINUX ???
credits belong to all of them for contributing to the OS in one or the other form.
Just wonder, is there any....
http://tinyurl.com/lxfoffer1 (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 7:29am
real usable GNU-based OS without the Linux kernel (Hurd?)
and on the other side
any real usable Linux kernel-based OS without GNU toolchain?
CC. I did you a favour with a great product placement ;)
Outdated question, from another age
Not a GNU (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 9:01am
When referring to operating systems as the geek knows them, call it GNU/Linux. When referring to operating systems as the everyman understands them, call it "Fedora", "Ubuntu", "Mageia", etc.
Never call it Linux; this meritless label tells almost nothing about the technical platform, nor about the user experience, nor does it denote a useful system of standardized development interfaces. As a trademark, it's poisoned. As a product, it's incoherent.
A Better Way ...
SDD (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 9:24am
Just call it Android - that's the future!
Just like the words Nestcape and Mozilla ...
Jordi (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 9:47am
And remember, it's spelled GNU/Linux, but it's pronounced Linux.
;)
I'm still debating
Iselalmaen Penguin (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 10:35am
I'm still debating "Linn-ucks" versus "Lie-nucks"...
Captcha: Father Gates
Pronunciation and Branding
Paul Dann (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 11:33am
@Iselalmaen => I used to go the "lie-nux" route, but Linus Torvalds is as close to an authority as we'll get on the subject, and he pronounces it "lee-nooks" in Finnish (you can find the soundbyte online). The closest approximation in English is "lynn-ux". Most people pronounce it this way, and it flows better off the tongue.
Regarding GNU/Linux, it's just silly. It's a clumsy name, and as already mentioned in the magazine, if you want to go down that route, you'd need to credit every component of the system. Linux is the closest thing we've got to a brand name. We should use it.
First of GNU/ doesn't really
nai - April 25, 2012 @ 11:38am
First of GNU/ doesn't really roll of the tongue and secondly everyone that knows even the tiniest bit about how their os works knows where the parts are from and seeing as it's not KDE/Gnu/Linux etc I see no real point.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
jazzyjeph (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 2:54pm
I say respect where it's due and agree with the francium_duck on this.
Credit where credit is due...
Tobi - April 25, 2012 @ 3:50pm
...hence we should always say "Frozen Bubble / Supertuxkart / Pink Ponies / Linux". Whoever fails to do that will spend the rest of eternity in hell, listen to endless recitals of the Free Software song!
Sounds stupid. It's stupid.
bananaoomarang - April 25, 2012 @ 6:45pm
There's know getting away from the fact that GNU/Linux just sounds *stupid*, it doesn't roll, it's awkward to say. If RMS really feels the need to push something why not something like 'Glinux' instead. Honestly though, it's a stupid argument, the world has far better things to argue about.
Thank you GNU foundation for your software, but please, drop this silly campaign.
Does it really matter....
PulsatingQuasar (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 8:51pm
It doesn't really matter.
The name Linux is just a term to throw all Linux related systems on one pile. The term is very broad because in itself on a desktop it is nothing.
Linux gets a face when KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Unity, etc, etc is used.
Do we also say Linux Ubuntu, Linux OpenSUSE, Linux Fedora?
Solution: Say linux, spell
Bearer of Solutions (not verified) - April 25, 2012 @ 8:54pm
Solution: Say linux, spell "LiNux" - The "N" stands for the "N" in gNu.
Let's Move On
down under down under (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 12:35am
Yep, I'm hearing pretty clearly from everyone just what I'm thinking...this is a silly argument that is getting much more attention than it's worth. For 20 years we've been calling in Linux, and I suspect only the hardcore pedantic purist is going to make an issue of it.
What's important isn't what we call it, but that it is working brilliantly for us. Let's move on.
Why no what it is?
Penguins Anonymous (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 1:27am
Linux is just a kernel. We all know that. But we also know that most PC operating systems that use Linux are in them self Linux. We can all agree that Android is NOT Linux but it does use Linux and Ubuntu is moving further away from Linux every day to a point where it will only be Ubuntu.
Lets just just call them by their distro name and what the expected software set is going to run on them. That is... Linux. Example: Slackware Linux. However, I don't think I can bring my self to say Ubuntu Linux... But that's close enough for now.
So then what is GNU/Linux? well It's just that. It's a small set of applications that run in shell mode on the linux kernel. Most things with graphics require X.org so if anybody wants to complain about the name of GNU/Linux they must give credit there. GNU/X/Linux.... or just Li-GNU-X or something else that nobody cares about.
GNU/Linux RMS was right
Andrew Cole (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 5:05am
It's easy to rag on RMS and soak up the fact that Linux is easier to type, read and pronounce, but just look at what is happening with Ubuntu doing the same thing to Linux! When I first heard they were calling it the "Ubuntu kernel", despite the fact that they are one of the smallest contributes (especially given their resources) and that finding the word "Linux" on their site was akin to hunting for big foot, I was angry.
At the same time, Ubuntu is starting to offer paid apps in their app store. Regardless of what you think of that decision, and I have mixed feelings myself, they are making moves away from software freedom while distancing themselves from the projects that have literally made them what they are. They would be nothing without Linux and GNU.
In short, it may seem like a pain in the ass to give GNU credit when mentioning Linux, but they deserve it. GCC is probably the most popular compiler on the planet and none of us would be able to have our software freedom without RMS, so if he asks for this small thing in return then I think it's the least we can do.
Leenux - linnnnooks - GGGGnu Leenux, AAAArrrgh
Brian36 (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 12:58pm
Google had a problem with folk saying 'I'm googling', but Google lost that one, too. As long as we all agree in what we're talking about, does it matter? And I still say 'nome instead of G-nome.
Flanders and Swan:
I'm a Gnu,A g-nother gnu
I wish I could g-nash my teeth at you!
I'm a Gnu, How do you do
You really ought to k-now w-ho's w-ho.
I'm a Gnu Spelt G-N-U,
etc
Keep it simple...
Ray Woods (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 1:30pm
Most people know it just as Linux. It is short and snappy and is the G in GNU silent or not? Who cares! For me it is Linux and Gnome has a silent G. I'm with Brian36!
GNU/*/Linux ?
Dan-Simon (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 3:11pm
The argument that you *have* to pay respect to GNU by calling it GNU/Linux, indicates that only GNU and the Linux kernel developers contribute to the platform.
But that's not the case, but obviously you cannot call it GNU/PHP/Apache/MySQL/Linux ect... And GNU/*/Linux is even harder to pronounce...
How about just calling it "*"?
I don't GKnow
Si The Pie (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 5:15pm
I don't GKnow!
I think the note from Jason
Sigg3.net (not verified) - April 26, 2012 @ 7:11pm
I think the note from Jason Irwin was well-placed. In a newbie guide to Linux you should declare the full GNU/Linux name, then abbreviate to Linux as you prefer after the introduction. I personally try to include it in written/formal texts, but I don't go around saying "GNU plus Linux" when I evangelize.
That said, you should probably explain plain "Linux" as well (Linus and UNIX aso). The Slackware manual's introduction is a great starting point.
Calling it GNU/PHP/Apache/MySQL etc.is silly and completely misses the point. The GNU tools and the Linux kernel are essential to GNU/Linux. PHP, Apache and MySQL are "just" the selling software. GNU tools may be replaced but they haven't yet, so for the time being the point is moot.
The name is GNU/Linux, but we _say_ Linux.
Also, this has nothing to do with RMS, and everything to do with academia. People keep nagging RMS for something that is common practice in academia and also business life.
I found the printed reply either a) tongue-in-cheek or b) sour and unprofessional, depending on how you read it. I hope b) was not intended. Mind the Gap! Your readers are from all over the world, and not everyone can catch the idiomatic nuances. But I'm a subscriber, so you already got your slightly warm ale.
Sincerely,
Sigge [pron*: Sigg/e/]
*yeah, right.
01001011011001010110010101110000001000000111010101110000001000000111010001101000011001010010000001100111011011110110111101100100001000000111011101101111011100100110101100100001
Gnu/Linux it is.
mdba - April 26, 2012 @ 10:33pm
Can anyone tell us who did great job that made Linux into popularity beside RMS? Nobody. To me he deserves full recognition.
Too late to change now.
Jake Moore (not verified) - April 27, 2012 @ 7:53am
GNU/Linux as a name is not user friendly. It scares the shit out of people (the kind of people who are scared of openiong emails in case their computer explodes.) Linux is easier to handle for the average joe who knows nothing of software freedom, he needs free software to be user friendly, starting with the name!
Follow their thinking and...
jarubyh (not verified) - April 27, 2012 @ 8:51pm
Mint/Ubuntu/Debian/GNU/Linux
On the topic of proper naming......
Jake Moore (not verified) - April 28, 2012 @ 4:27am
On the topic of proper naming......
The word "Free" I think should not be used as non "GNU and/or Linux" users think Free Software means Freeware. This mistake happens all the time, I propose another Ballot of which term is more accurate "Free Software (FOSS) vs Libre Software"
Or even just calling it "GPL Software" could be even clearer.
Who cares? Not me.
BrisPete - April 29, 2012 @ 11:01pm
It doesn't matter. Of the top 100 distros on Distrowatch only 5 have Linux as part of their name. Although they are all Linux or GNU/Linux distros the truth is that we probably are users of Fedora, Debian, OpenSuse, Ubuntu or Mint ... or whatever, before we are users of Linux or GNU/Linux.
Its Linux. Period.
DebianDave (not verified) - April 30, 2012 @ 9:34pm
Linux is Linux just as iPad is iPad.
My Point: The iPad contains parts from various companies. It includes chips made by Broadcom Corp., Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic, Samsung and Toshiba and the Screen is made by LG Displays (not to mention all the software companies they used!) Oh, and it is assembled in China by Foxconn.
You do not call it the Broadcom/Texas Instruments/Cirrus Logic/Samsung/Toshiba/LG/Foxconn-iPad. Its just iPad.
Linux is just Linux.
Linux
Really Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 3, 2012 @ 7:30pm
Nobody I know calls it Gnu/Linux.
GNU/Linux? no, something else? yes...
freeweaver (not verified) - May 8, 2012 @ 2:59am
RMS deserves recognition for being a MAJOR part in the birth of free software culture. However, using the name GNU/Linux is not going to catch on, and as such is not the best way to give him that recognition. So, I vote for using
"Freenux"
Tribute the free part to RMS and the rest to Linus. It's short, roles off the tongue, and sounds somewhat like Phoenix (not a bad thing).
RMS has an unquestioned place in software/computer evolution, don't let perceived inconvenience write him out of the history books. In true Foss fashion, if the name doesn't work change it.
to those who think this type of thing doesn't matter, I feel sure you haven't put yourself in his shoes. What would you want if you were him. Just a little respect is all.
Worst Long-Running Marketing Campaign Ever
Stonemirror (the Great and Terrible) (not verified) - May 10, 2012 @ 7:19pm
Let's see: RMS has spent a couple of decades attempting to browbeat the world into "recognizing" GNU as a "principle designer" of the system that everyone except RMS and his dwindling number of minions refer to in a fashion which they feel unfairly "recognizes" Linus Torvalds. If people actually refer to it at all, which they largely don't.
Without notable success. Sometimes, you need to know when to call it a day and get on with life.
I would just like to interject for a moment.
Anonymous (not verified) - May 10, 2012 @ 7:27pm
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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'd just like to interject for a moment.
Anonymous Muhammed Stallman (not verified) - May 10, 2012 @ 7:31pm
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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.
GNU Linux
Gino (not verified) - May 10, 2012 @ 10:05pm
It's GNU Linux, the creator of most of the project(GNU) wants us to call it that, so you that's what you call it.
If you want to give it one name, GNU-OS is more appropriate then linux.
Linux refers to the kernel, so if your talking only about the kernel, then linux is fine.
If your talking about the OS which is mostly GNU, call it GNU Linux.
Why GNU first?
LessIsMore (not verified) - May 11, 2012 @ 11:22am
I think it's funny that after the breakthrough success of the Linux kernel, Stallman comes along and tags "GNU" on the front of his proposed title, GNU/Linux. Isn't that a bit arrogant?
I agree, GNU-OS is a better
Anon (not verified) - May 11, 2012 @ 11:35am
I agree, GNU-OS is a better name. Linux doesn't need to be named, unless you are talking about the kernel specifically.
Linux is a fine name by
Linux is fine (not verified) - May 11, 2012 @ 11:37am
Linux is a fine name by itself. The name "GNU/Linux" is quite frankly intimidating, and sounds overly technical. Not a good first impression on newcomers.
The reasoning is not so nonsensical as some claim
C. Whitman (not verified) - May 11, 2012 @ 3:53pm
To begin with I'd like to say that I just use the term "Linux" unless I have some special need to distinguish it from another operating system based on the Linux kernel or a need to distinguish between the kernel and the operating system (though often then I just say "Linux the kernel" and "Linux the operating system").
However, I would like to point out that the reasoning for calling it GNU/Linux is a lot simpler than some people are making out. Linux by itself is not an operating system; it's just a kernel that you need additional software in order to interact with. The minimal additional software required to turn it from a kernel into and operating system is the GNU utilities. You could alternatively add other software, like Busybox, but the operating system that you end up being compatible with started out with the GNU utilities.
Just the same, it's a lot simpler to just call it Linux till you have to explain what the difference is between a Linux system and an Android system since Android uses a Linux kernel.
How about just GNU
dodo (not verified) - May 14, 2012 @ 8:03am
instead of Linux or GNU/LINUX. GNU is the operating system. Why would anyone call their system by its' kernel name.
I’d just like to interject for a moment.
Ricky Stalllman (not verified) - October 23, 2012 @ 4:21pm
What you’re refering to as LOONIX, is in fact, GANOO SLASH LOONIX, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GANOO plus LOONIX. LOONIX is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GANOO system made useful by the GANOO corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GANOO system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GANOO which is widely used today is often called “LOONIX”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GANOO system, developed by the GANOO Project.
There really is a LOONIX, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. LOONIX 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. LOONIX is normally used in combination with the GANOO operating system: the whole system is basically GANOO with Linux added, or GANOO SLASH LOONIX. All the so-called “LOONIX” distributions are really distributions of GANOO SLASH LOONIX.
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'.
Linus (not verified) - October 24, 2012 @ 2:41am
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 (me), used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). I named it 'Linux' with a little help from my friends. Why don't I call it GNU/Linux? Because I wrote it, with more help from my friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff. The proper name is Linux because I say so. I have spoken. Accept my 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.
Thanks for listening.
GNU/Linux vs. Linux
Linuxant (not verified) - April 20, 2013 @ 8:19pm
The Linux community is like a herd of cats, freedom seems to be an important issue which appears in naming. RMS loves GNU/Linux & GNU+Linux, So many like Linux including Linus Torvalds.
Ubuntu dropped the suffix Linux, and Android seems quite secretive about its Linux roots. For a newbie 'Linux' sounds just right one word, like Mac, Windows, Android, I don't think I heard a lot someone saying Apple Macintosh (recently) or Microsoft Windows 8. Similarly, it may be equally hard to say Minix->Linux<-GNU<-Hurd.
Anyway, each is entitled to call it whatever s/he prefers. If it's all about credits. I don't think that anyone would ever underestimate the role RMS in GNU/Linux, he is cardinal to it, and naming does not mean ignoring credit, it's more of a convention.
Amerigo Vespucci, may not be happy when we say the States, Jay Miner did not like 'Amiga'. The man who invented the Walkman did not like it's name. Does any of these names mean discrediting. NO, it's just convention
Post new comment