This is politics. Stallman FAILED to create a kernel that worked, he only made the compiler tools and that was it. Linus succeeded where he failed and stallman's been pissed ever since. FUCK YOU RICHARD. It's LINUX and I'll always call it linux. You didn't create shit , so fuck off.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom Without the kernel you don't have shit. The computer can't do anyting..PERIOD. All stallman created was the development tools, he failed to create a kernel. THIS IS FACT. Since then he created the gpl license and anything that is attached to that license he tries to bully his way into and take over the project. He's a nutjob out of touch with reality that hasn't contributed anything other than the gpl and TONS of pr bs about linux being renamed gnu/linux.
@luckyglasspig BTW Stallman had attempted a kernel before Linus did, it was GNU HUD. And if failed miserably. He can bitch and moan and try to rewrite history as much as he wants but he didn't do the work. Therefore he doesn't get the credit , period. And nut huggers like you can go fucking pound sand.
It did fail, but luckily Linux was contributed by Linus Torvalds. People in the GNU project wanted to give credit to Linus so they changed the name of the operating from GNU to GNU/Linux. Why is this so hard for you to understand? THEY WANTED TO GIVE CREDIT TO LINUS
GNU started the project, they were the driving force behind the development of the OS. It's not a difficult concept.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom It's not a difficult concept. Lets put it this way. I make the tools ( a hammer, a saw and nails) and along comes someone who actually DOES something with them like build a house. Should I get credit for building that house. Should that house have my name on it? No. Now go stick your head in your ass where it belongs.
@luckyglasspig You have this idea that all the GNU project did was make some programming tools. They started the project to make a 100% free OS (which they would call GNU). They lead the way and actually made the BIGGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTION. I can't believe you implied Linus did most of the work.
Instead of a house think of the International Space Station. If most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom That's all it was , the tools. They started a project BUT DIDN"T FINISH IT. Someone else did, had others help him and finished the job. You don't get credit for shit you didn't do. Sorry, that's how the world works. Maybe not in LAZY programer land, but in the real world you only get credit for finishing the work you've done. I don't care how many project Stallman starts. Linux is not his, never will be, and he needs to fucking get over it.
@luckyglasspig You simply cannot say that all they made were the tools. Are you saying that GNU tools + a kernel = An operating system?
The GNU project was named after the OS they set out to write - GNU. People contributing to the project did so in the name of GNU. Linus gave his kernel for the GNU system. I could add the final brick to a house but that does not mean I deserve credit for the whole job.
GNU lead the way and made the biggest single contribution. You cannot escape this fact
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom They made the car and Linus comes along with the engine to actually make it work. Without that you have a shiny turd THAT CAN'T DO ANYTHING. Once again, all they did was make the tools. Linus used said tools and compiled the kernel. Without a working kernel you do not have an operating system. Once again. Only in software land do fucks like you think you should get credit for something you didn't make. "Well he came up with the idea'' Blah blah, fuck you.
@luckyglasspig "They made the car...no wait - they only made the tools"
The GNU project did more than make programming tools. How many times do I have to repeat this? Linus wrote and contributed a vital part of the system but guess what- LOTS OF PARTS ARE VITAL. The majority of these vital parts were written by the GNU project because - like I've said before - they made the biggest single contribution
You don't seem to be confronting these facts; possibly because you're in denial.
@nilbud Gnu's contributions are overrated.. Stallman is a loser hack job that pisses and moans he didn't create Linux. Oh and how is that GNU violating gpl thing working out? Fanboy fuck.
@luckyglasspig Why do people think rms = GNU = a collection of programming tools? The GNU project made many components including the GCC, GNOME, BASH and others. I know that GNU failed to make a kernel and never disputed that
Your statement about him 'bullying his way' into any project with with a GPL is outrageous
His contributions are many but what has this got to do with the naming of GNU/Linux? Please debate properly. The OS was named GNU from the start. Their idea, most of their work.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom Bullshit. No kernel no OS. Period. I don't give a damn what tools you fucking have. Stallman failed, HURD failed MISERABLY and he's been pissing and crying ever since. I for one can't wait till he dies. At least then I never have to fucking hear him again.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom A fanboy fuck who quotes Stallman (AND REFERS TO HIM BY THAT BITCH ASS RMS NICKNAME) like you can go back to sucking stallman's taint. Get on your knees and lick his balls cause that's all you are fucking good for. Anyone who thinks quoting someone is a sign of intellectual thought is a nut hugger incapable of thinking for themselves. I was taking you seriously for a moment and now I see you're nothing but a bitch.
@luckyglasspig I am quite capable of thinking for myself which is why I am able to give reasonable arguments that back up my view. You, however, simply stick your head in the sand and shout obscenities at people with different opinions to yours
The quote was relevant. You seem to think the name isn't important - probably because you're coming from a purely technical perspective. I believe it is important because 'GNU/Linux' makes people curious about the GNU project and the philosophy behind it
Thanks for the great video! If you need help installing, configuring, or setting up zen cart, check out our channel for lots of Easy Help Zen Cart Tutorials:
I understand Stallman's reasons, but "just Linux" is a simple, unified brand, and that's easier for non-techies to get. People know operating systems as singulars: "this is Windows" or "this is Mac OS". Why should they care about the distinction between kernel, compiler, debugger, libraries, environments, whatever... "I don't get any of this, I just want my computer to work!"
GNU didnt write the Linux kernel. Therefore I refuse to call it GNU/Linux. gcc is a tool used to build. Much like a hammer is used to build things. But you dont buy a chair and say "This chair is A (hammer company name)/Lazyboy chair"
He's just pissed because the HURD is a piece of shit that will never be finished, so he has to throw his weight around (hurf durf) about shit that nobody cares about.
@starsiegeplayer No. You say calling it 'GNU/Linux' would make it more complex but how can that be when that is the shortest legitimate name for the OS? Calling you 'cunt' would be less complex than your current username but that is not reason enough to start doing so.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom Why not call Ubuntu GNU/Linux/X/Compiz/Unity instead? Because it's stupid! Linux is the name people associate the OS with. It's that simple!
@Eikus89 Calling GNU/Linux 'Linux' leads people to believe that a kernel and an operating system are the same thing. It makes them think that Linus Torvalds started the OS. It makes people associate the beliefs of Linus with the OS. It stops people from learning about the ideals and that actually started the OS.
The popularity of an error does not make it right. The OS was named GNU from the start, then GNU/Linux when Linus contributed the kernel. Educate people instead of confusing them.
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom There are tooo many people who contribute to linux and richard can't claim complete credit for the operating system. The community calls it linux, and that's what it shall be called. Politics and word games aside stallman should grow up and move on for fuck's sake.
''There are tooo many people who contribute to (GNU/)linux" - Too many for what?
"richard can't claim complete credit for the operating system." It was his idea but nobody implied it's all his work.
"The community calls it linux, and that's what it shall be called. " I hope you aren't implying that it should be called 'Linux' because people call it that. Stupid logic.
What exactly are you trying to say? If you value the free software community you should call it GNu/Linux
I think people who matter know exactly what GNU is regardless of whether we prefix Linux with it in daily speech. I'd argue people who don't know what GNU is arguably don't really need to know as they won't grasp the real meaning anyway.
Of course GNU deserves all the accolades we can give it but it'll never stick in common parlance. Insisting on it feels slightly petty, despite my massive respect for Richard.
quick, someone trademark GNU/Linux™ and then sue Richard Stallman whenever he goes on one of his GNU/Linux rants, just to piss him off, for fun, and for profit.
I see this as calling someone by just their first name, or just their last name, or both - each identifies either a narrow or wider aspect of a person, or fully qualifies their name...
But, what does it really matter what we call freedom? As long as it's really free.
Claiming a innocuous misnomer is tantamount to denying someone freedom, and negating others sacrifices, is not only a fallacy, but draws focus to the wrong ideas. It makes us seem fragmented in our purpose.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stallman, as well as Mr. Tovalds, and I suppose Mr. and Ms. everyone else who's contributed to freedom... but, is it really necessary to acknowledge one, two, or millions of contributors every time i refer to it?
All this GNU vs. Linux, open-source vs. free-software... is this more conducive or more detrimental to our ideals.
I agree that it doesnt matter, but credit where credit is due.
Without GNU, Linux wouldnt exist. Things like gcc and even the most basic of command line tools like ls cp rm come from GNU. Without UNIX, GNU wouldn't be GNU's Not Unix. It would be GNU isnt anything.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stallman, as well as Mr. Tovalds, and I suppose Mr. and Ms. everyone else who's contributed to freedom... but, is it really necessary to acknowledge one, two, or millions of contributors every time i refer to it?
All this GNU vs. Linux, open-source vs. free-software... is this more conducive or more detrimental to our ideals.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stallman, as well as Mr. Tovalds, and I suppose Mr. and Ms. everyone else who's contributed to freedom... but, is it really necessary to acknowledge one, two, or millions of contributors every time i refer to it?
All this GNU vs. Linux, open-source vs. free-software... is this more conducive or more detrimental to our ideals.
Freedom does not belong to the freedom fighters! No, once revolution is achieved, the fighters must put down their arms, and become citizens, or risk becoming tyrants of the next regime.
Let's unite in calling it "Jellybeans", and win over the rest of the world (including my grandma who struggles to say "ge-noo-[se-lash|pe-lus]-[lih|lie]-[nix|nux]"). The people who matter will know the truth, the rest won't care...
(Please don't stop what you're doing Mr. Stallman. We love you. lol)
"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."
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNULinux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. 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?
This whole GNU/Linux affair is a pretty sad story. Stallman was one of the heroes of the early Linux movement. He was a god. They thought they were doing him a huge favor by making his little used tools popular (there where often alternatives) and improving them.
Stallman however apparently saw Linux as a competitor. And then when it was clear that Linux was going to be very big he sent this disrespectful message to the community trying to take over.
How could he see it as a competitor? Linux doesn't even boot without Gnu, and you certainly can't compile it without GCC. Besides, Linux is under the GPL. It sounds more like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Remember that Linux wasn't taken seriously at first by a lot of academics and other Unix professionals. It was a grass roots project with it's origins in the Minix OS which was just an educational tool. It of course booted just fine without anything GNU, only the compiler was truly essential. Even BSD couldn't do without that. The GPL was always popular in the Linux community: a good indication that GNU and Linux were sharing the same political ends (another thing Stallman didn't realize).
So, you're going to boot up a kernel without a bootloader, just because you can, then you're going to interact with this kernel without a shell, filesystem, applications, windows system, or any runtime scripts whatsoever. Like Linus said, a kernel is useless by itself.
We used the Lilo bootloader for years, Grub came along much later. Lilo had a BSD license so it's probably not GNU. The windows system was X, also not GNU. Linux stands on the shoulders of Unix, not just GNU.
The current BSD and X11 licenses are both GPL-compatible. Furthermore, you still don't meet the requirement for a fully functioning operating system. Bash is the most commonly used shell, ext* is the most commonly used filesystem (given there are others), most of the lower level applications are unix replacements by the Gnu project. Also, Grub is now in wider use than lilo, mostly due to the fact that lilo is barely alive.
Also, your analysis of Stallman is inaccurate, since he's said many times that he doesn't have a problem with the open-source camp or Linux. The issue he brings up is that many people don't understand the reason by the GPL, which is related to the user's freedom, not practical use. I've never heard a fanboy mention anything about freedom, at least in the context I am speaking of.
'Freedom' in relation to software is part of Stallman's convoluted ideology. 'Freedom' is language for the barricades, not for serious analysis. But of the early Linux people knew very well that they didn't want to be dependent on any company or other organisation (like for example the FSF). They had been badly bitten by that in the past as Commodore, Atari, Minix, Acorn or whatever users. In that sense the Linux movement was always political.
I'm many referring to Ubuntu fanboys. You know, the loud group that just found out about Linux yesterday. And yes, I mean just Linux, because you hear nothing about Gnu, free-software, or freedom from them.
"(like for example the FSF)"
The FSF is a separate project from the Gnu project. Since the FSF doesn't produce hardware or software, there isn't a chance of dependence.
It's actually kinda funny that you bring up dependence, since one of Stallman's issues with the open-source camp is that it allows for proprietary drivers, and the dependence on the vendor. So, I don't see where you're taking this.
In most cases, I say "Linux" because it is easier than "GNU Linux" or "GNU slash Linux", etc.
We must respect what Free Software team has done, and respect is totally necessary! I personally do not need to say "GNU Slash Linux" to promote GNU. I use their software all the time. I even use GNU EMACS on my work PC -- where everyone else is on Visual Studio.
No matter what, I am pretty much spreading GNU without using the word "Linux" afterwards! On top of this... educate them at the same time!
If he wants a GNU operating system, he should actually focus on making the HURD less shit rather than constantly argue over a naming issue which, in the end, is up to the distributors who release the software.
I totally agree that people should remind themselfs that their are not using only Linux OS, but the GNU OS and linux kernel.
If you research enough you will conclude that GNU has developed to a point that only the kernel was missing. They started to build the GNU HURD, was the kernel supose to be implemented on the GNU OS. but linus wrote linux first and and was adopted insted on HURD. People shouldnt forget that, free software fans own so much to Stallman and the GNU operating system.
does that mean i have to call mac "mac/bsd?" because they adopted some of the bsd code? whats happened has happened and not knowing what to call it just confuses the new users.
Linux is not GNU (or LNG lol:). The kernel is not just any other software. It's the base onto which other (interchangeable) parts are put on. Linus developed the kernel and used GNU software to make Linux (like GCC to compile it) and not the other way around. Linus made it, he has the authority to name it whatever he wants.
I think it's sad that Stallman so provocatively chases someone else's credit. After all, he should be proud of his own work.
Linus originally wanted to call the kernel Freax, not Linux. But even Linus agrees that a distribution can be called Gnu/Linux for the same reasons Stallman calls it Gnu/Linux. Furthermore, Linus didn't do most of the work on the kernel himself, he posted it online so others could patch and make suggestions.
The Gnu project made a majority of what was needed for a fully functional operating system, including the command line (bash). Point is, a kernel is not an operating system.
Saying "GNU/Linux" has always seemed redundant to me. Yes, Linux is useless without GNU. Anyone can find out about GNU if they want, and they will even if they don't want to; but people who don't know, are likely really new to free software. I didn't know what X was until the first time I installed the nVidia drivers, and to a lot of people, Linux is utterly useless without X. Those people wouldn't know how to use a command line. Everyone in the OSS community finds out about GNU in due time.
In writing, I use the term "GNU/Linux" because it is technically correct and all due respect should be paid to the FSF.
In speech, I say "Linux" because it's more convenient and it flows more naturally off the tongue, especially when I'm explaining to non-GNU/Linux users what "Linux" even is.
There are a lot of people who don't even know about it and there's absolutely no need to confuse potential new users with the intricacies of free software's internal politics.
it's lame to think that Torvalds is becoming the second Bill Gates -- hindrance for Free Software Movement.
If only he agrees for Linux be called GNU+Linux. Life for FSF should be much easier and go on with the development of GNU OS.
The OS giants (except Bruce Perens) are hard with their "why 'free software'?".
This makes me want to help promote the use of GNU HURD (the real kernel meant for GNU OS). Too bad, Sir Stallman said that HURD's development is on stand still.
Richard proposes two terms, GNU/Linux and GNU+Linux. It's kind of awkward saying 'GNU slash Linux', and I've found from experience that it sounds better and it's easier to get people to say 'GNU plus Linux'.
In spanish he also accepts 'GNU con Linux', which translates as 'GNU with Linux'.
That is both misleading and factually incorrect. Furthermore, this term is rejected by both Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.
It's incorrect because we have, for example, GNU Emacs, wich is the version of Emacs that was developed for the GNU operating system.
When saying "GNU Linux", it suggests that you are talking about a Linux version which was developed for the GNU project, of which there are none. Linux is, and always has been, an independent project.
This is politics. Stallman FAILED to create a kernel that worked, he only made the compiler tools and that was it. Linus succeeded where he failed and stallman's been pissed ever since. FUCK YOU RICHARD. It's LINUX and I'll always call it linux. You didn't create shit , so fuck off.
luckyglasspig 7 months ago
@luckyglasspig "Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone. " - rms
The politics are important. Stop acting like a child.
To imply that all the GNU project made were compiler tools is laughable. They had everything but the kernel. GNU + the kernel Linux = GNU/Linux.
You are harming society by not telling people about the ideals that brought this free OS into existence.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 7 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom Without the kernel you don't have shit. The computer can't do anyting..PERIOD. All stallman created was the development tools, he failed to create a kernel. THIS IS FACT. Since then he created the gpl license and anything that is attached to that license he tries to bully his way into and take over the project. He's a nutjob out of touch with reality that hasn't contributed anything other than the gpl and TONS of pr bs about linux being renamed gnu/linux.
luckyglasspig 7 months ago
@luckyglasspig BTW Stallman had attempted a kernel before Linus did, it was GNU HUD. And if failed miserably. He can bitch and moan and try to rewrite history as much as he wants but he didn't do the work. Therefore he doesn't get the credit , period. And nut huggers like you can go fucking pound sand.
luckyglasspig 7 months ago
@luckyglasspig *GNU HURD actually.
It did fail, but luckily Linux was contributed by Linus Torvalds. People in the GNU project wanted to give credit to Linus so they changed the name of the operating from GNU to GNU/Linux. Why is this so hard for you to understand? THEY WANTED TO GIVE CREDIT TO LINUS
GNU started the project, they were the driving force behind the development of the OS. It's not a difficult concept.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 7 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom It's not a difficult concept. Lets put it this way. I make the tools ( a hammer, a saw and nails) and along comes someone who actually DOES something with them like build a house. Should I get credit for building that house. Should that house have my name on it? No. Now go stick your head in your ass where it belongs.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig You have this idea that all the GNU project did was make some programming tools. They started the project to make a 100% free OS (which they would call GNU). They lead the way and actually made the BIGGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTION. I can't believe you implied Linus did most of the work.
Instead of a house think of the International Space Station. If most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 6 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom That's all it was , the tools. They started a project BUT DIDN"T FINISH IT. Someone else did, had others help him and finished the job. You don't get credit for shit you didn't do. Sorry, that's how the world works. Maybe not in LAZY programer land, but in the real world you only get credit for finishing the work you've done. I don't care how many project Stallman starts. Linux is not his, never will be, and he needs to fucking get over it.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig You simply cannot say that all they made were the tools. Are you saying that GNU tools + a kernel = An operating system?
The GNU project was named after the OS they set out to write - GNU. People contributing to the project did so in the name of GNU. Linus gave his kernel for the GNU system. I could add the final brick to a house but that does not mean I deserve credit for the whole job.
GNU lead the way and made the biggest single contribution. You cannot escape this fact
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 6 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom They made the car and Linus comes along with the engine to actually make it work. Without that you have a shiny turd THAT CAN'T DO ANYTHING. Once again, all they did was make the tools. Linus used said tools and compiled the kernel. Without a working kernel you do not have an operating system. Once again. Only in software land do fucks like you think you should get credit for something you didn't make. "Well he came up with the idea'' Blah blah, fuck you.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig "They made the car...no wait - they only made the tools"
The GNU project did more than make programming tools. How many times do I have to repeat this? Linus wrote and contributed a vital part of the system but guess what- LOTS OF PARTS ARE VITAL. The majority of these vital parts were written by the GNU project because - like I've said before - they made the biggest single contribution
You don't seem to be confronting these facts; possibly because you're in denial.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig You addressed that remark to yourself, recursively. See what happens when you diss the GNU.
nilbud 6 months ago
@nilbud Gnu's contributions are overrated.. Stallman is a loser hack job that pisses and moans he didn't create Linux. Oh and how is that GNU violating gpl thing working out? Fanboy fuck.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig Why do people think rms = GNU = a collection of programming tools? The GNU project made many components including the GCC, GNOME, BASH and others. I know that GNU failed to make a kernel and never disputed that
Your statement about him 'bullying his way' into any project with with a GPL is outrageous
His contributions are many but what has this got to do with the naming of GNU/Linux? Please debate properly. The OS was named GNU from the start. Their idea, most of their work.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 7 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom Bullshit. No kernel no OS. Period. I don't give a damn what tools you fucking have. Stallman failed, HURD failed MISERABLY and he's been pissing and crying ever since. I for one can't wait till he dies. At least then I never have to fucking hear him again.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig Why do you write shit you know nothing about?
nilbud 6 months ago
@nilbud It was enough to get you to comment on me twice in less than 5 minutes. Did I touch a nerve? Fuck you.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom A fanboy fuck who quotes Stallman (AND REFERS TO HIM BY THAT BITCH ASS RMS NICKNAME) like you can go back to sucking stallman's taint. Get on your knees and lick his balls cause that's all you are fucking good for. Anyone who thinks quoting someone is a sign of intellectual thought is a nut hugger incapable of thinking for themselves. I was taking you seriously for a moment and now I see you're nothing but a bitch.
luckyglasspig 6 months ago
@luckyglasspig I am quite capable of thinking for myself which is why I am able to give reasonable arguments that back up my view. You, however, simply stick your head in the sand and shout obscenities at people with different opinions to yours
The quote was relevant. You seem to think the name isn't important - probably because you're coming from a purely technical perspective. I believe it is important because 'GNU/Linux' makes people curious about the GNU project and the philosophy behind it
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 6 months ago
Thanks for the great video! If you need help installing, configuring, or setting up zen cart, check out our channel for lots of Easy Help Zen Cart Tutorials:
ZenCartEasyHelp 8 months ago
I understand Stallman's reasons, but "just Linux" is a simple, unified brand, and that's easier for non-techies to get. People know operating systems as singulars: "this is Windows" or "this is Mac OS". Why should they care about the distinction between kernel, compiler, debugger, libraries, environments, whatever... "I don't get any of this, I just want my computer to work!"
nightsdreamparadox 10 months ago
GNU didnt write the Linux kernel. Therefore I refuse to call it GNU/Linux. gcc is a tool used to build. Much like a hammer is used to build things. But you dont buy a chair and say "This chair is A (hammer company name)/Lazyboy chair"
numba1netsfan 1 year ago
@numba1netsfan Just call it GNU in that case.
nilbud 6 months ago
He's just pissed because the HURD is a piece of shit that will never be finished, so he has to throw his weight around (hurf durf) about shit that nobody cares about.
nightmareofsolomon 1 year ago
I'm not going to call it GNU/Linux. I know what contributions the FSF makes, and I'm not going to unnecessarily make the name of the OS more complex.
starsiegeplayer 1 year ago
@starsiegeplayer No. You say calling it 'GNU/Linux' would make it more complex but how can that be when that is the shortest legitimate name for the OS? Calling you 'cunt' would be less complex than your current username but that is not reason enough to start doing so.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 9 months ago
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom Why not call Ubuntu GNU/Linux/X/Compiz/Unity instead? Because it's stupid! Linux is the name people associate the OS with. It's that simple!
Eikus89 9 months ago
@Eikus89 Calling GNU/Linux 'Linux' leads people to believe that a kernel and an operating system are the same thing. It makes them think that Linus Torvalds started the OS. It makes people associate the beliefs of Linus with the OS. It stops people from learning about the ideals and that actually started the OS.
The popularity of an error does not make it right. The OS was named GNU from the start, then GNU/Linux when Linus contributed the kernel. Educate people instead of confusing them.
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 9 months ago 2
@FreeAsInFreedoooooom There are tooo many people who contribute to linux and richard can't claim complete credit for the operating system. The community calls it linux, and that's what it shall be called. Politics and word games aside stallman should grow up and move on for fuck's sake.
luckyglasspig 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luckyglasspig
''There are tooo many people who contribute to (GNU/)linux" - Too many for what?
"richard can't claim complete credit for the operating system." It was his idea but nobody implied it's all his work.
"The community calls it linux, and that's what it shall be called. " I hope you aren't implying that it should be called 'Linux' because people call it that. Stupid logic.
What exactly are you trying to say? If you value the free software community you should call it GNu/Linux
FreeAsInFreedoooooom 7 months ago
@Eikus89 You're that simple. If you don't understand what was said then just fuck off instead of throwing your ignorance tantrum, bitch.
nilbud 6 months ago
I think people who matter know exactly what GNU is regardless of whether we prefix Linux with it in daily speech. I'd argue people who don't know what GNU is arguably don't really need to know as they won't grasp the real meaning anyway.
Of course GNU deserves all the accolades we can give it but it'll never stick in common parlance. Insisting on it feels slightly petty, despite my massive respect for Richard.
megamarsvin 1 year ago
quick, someone trademark GNU/Linux™ and then sue Richard Stallman whenever he goes on one of his GNU/Linux rants, just to piss him off, for fun, and for profit.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
Yo dawg, I herd you leik to hack, so I put a Linux kernel in your Gnu operating system, so you can hack while your hacking.
DicksOrGTFO1 1 year ago
I see this as calling someone by just their first name, or just their last name, or both - each identifies either a narrow or wider aspect of a person, or fully qualifies their name...
But, what does it really matter what we call freedom? As long as it's really free.
Claiming a innocuous misnomer is tantamount to denying someone freedom, and negating others sacrifices, is not only a fallacy, but draws focus to the wrong ideas. It makes us seem fragmented in our purpose.
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stallman, as well as Mr. Tovalds, and I suppose Mr. and Ms. everyone else who's contributed to freedom... but, is it really necessary to acknowledge one, two, or millions of contributors every time i refer to it?
All this GNU vs. Linux, open-source vs. free-software... is this more conducive or more detrimental to our ideals.
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
@fourdotsYT
I agree that it doesnt matter, but credit where credit is due.
Without GNU, Linux wouldnt exist. Things like gcc and even the most basic of command line tools like ls cp rm come from GNU. Without UNIX, GNU wouldn't be GNU's Not Unix. It would be GNU isnt anything.
@Hermetiqa
A kernel without the GNU tools isn't an operating system.
I'll give you just a kernel source tarball and let's see how far you get. Oh? You say you want to unpack it? That requires a few tools. right?
aeiounix 1 year ago
Comment removed
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stallman, as well as Mr. Tovalds, and I suppose Mr. and Ms. everyone else who's contributed to freedom... but, is it really necessary to acknowledge one, two, or millions of contributors every time i refer to it?
All this GNU vs. Linux, open-source vs. free-software... is this more conducive or more detrimental to our ideals.
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
Comment removed
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stallman, as well as Mr. Tovalds, and I suppose Mr. and Ms. everyone else who's contributed to freedom... but, is it really necessary to acknowledge one, two, or millions of contributors every time i refer to it?
All this GNU vs. Linux, open-source vs. free-software... is this more conducive or more detrimental to our ideals.
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freedom does not belong to the freedom fighters! No, once revolution is achieved, the fighters must put down their arms, and become citizens, or risk becoming tyrants of the next regime.
Let's unite in calling it "Jellybeans", and win over the rest of the world (including my grandma who struggles to say "ge-noo-[se-lash|pe-lus]-[lih|lie]-[nix|nux]"). The people who matter will know the truth, the rest won't care...
(Please don't stop what you're doing Mr. Stallman. We love you. lol)
fourdotsYT 1 year ago
"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."
Hermetiqa 1 year ago
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNULinux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. 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?
Hermetiqa 1 year ago
This whole GNU/Linux affair is a pretty sad story. Stallman was one of the heroes of the early Linux movement. He was a god. They thought they were doing him a huge favor by making his little used tools popular (there where often alternatives) and improving them.
Stallman however apparently saw Linux as a competitor. And then when it was clear that Linux was going to be very big he sent this disrespectful message to the community trying to take over.
That is what GNU/Linux stands for.
topd0wn 2 years ago
How could he see it as a competitor? Linux doesn't even boot without Gnu, and you certainly can't compile it without GCC. Besides, Linux is under the GPL. It sounds more like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Arkblu 2 years ago
Remember that Linux wasn't taken seriously at first by a lot of academics and other Unix professionals. It was a grass roots project with it's origins in the Minix OS which was just an educational tool. It of course booted just fine without anything GNU, only the compiler was truly essential. Even BSD couldn't do without that. The GPL was always popular in the Linux community: a good indication that GNU and Linux were sharing the same political ends (another thing Stallman didn't realize).
topd0wn 2 years ago
So, you're going to boot up a kernel without a bootloader, just because you can, then you're going to interact with this kernel without a shell, filesystem, applications, windows system, or any runtime scripts whatsoever. Like Linus said, a kernel is useless by itself.
Arkblu 2 years ago
We used the Lilo bootloader for years, Grub came along much later. Lilo had a BSD license so it's probably not GNU. The windows system was X, also not GNU. Linux stands on the shoulders of Unix, not just GNU.
topd0wn 2 years ago
The current BSD and X11 licenses are both GPL-compatible. Furthermore, you still don't meet the requirement for a fully functioning operating system. Bash is the most commonly used shell, ext* is the most commonly used filesystem (given there are others), most of the lower level applications are unix replacements by the Gnu project. Also, Grub is now in wider use than lilo, mostly due to the fact that lilo is barely alive.
Arkblu 2 years ago
Also, your analysis of Stallman is inaccurate, since he's said many times that he doesn't have a problem with the open-source camp or Linux. The issue he brings up is that many people don't understand the reason by the GPL, which is related to the user's freedom, not practical use. I've never heard a fanboy mention anything about freedom, at least in the context I am speaking of.
Arkblu 2 years ago
Lol, which kind of fanboy are you referring to?
'Freedom' in relation to software is part of Stallman's convoluted ideology. 'Freedom' is language for the barricades, not for serious analysis. But of the early Linux people knew very well that they didn't want to be dependent on any company or other organisation (like for example the FSF). They had been badly bitten by that in the past as Commodore, Atari, Minix, Acorn or whatever users. In that sense the Linux movement was always political.
topd0wn 2 years ago
I'm many referring to Ubuntu fanboys. You know, the loud group that just found out about Linux yesterday. And yes, I mean just Linux, because you hear nothing about Gnu, free-software, or freedom from them.
"(like for example the FSF)"
The FSF is a separate project from the Gnu project. Since the FSF doesn't produce hardware or software, there isn't a chance of dependence.
Arkblu 2 years ago
It's actually kinda funny that you bring up dependence, since one of Stallman's issues with the open-source camp is that it allows for proprietary drivers, and the dependence on the vendor. So, I don't see where you're taking this.
Arkblu 2 years ago
In most cases, I say "Linux" because it is easier than "GNU Linux" or "GNU slash Linux", etc.
We must respect what Free Software team has done, and respect is totally necessary! I personally do not need to say "GNU Slash Linux" to promote GNU. I use their software all the time. I even use GNU EMACS on my work PC -- where everyone else is on Visual Studio.
No matter what, I am pretty much spreading GNU without using the word "Linux" afterwards! On top of this... educate them at the same time!
wrestler50000 2 years ago
If he wants a GNU operating system, he should actually focus on making the HURD less shit rather than constantly argue over a naming issue which, in the end, is up to the distributors who release the software.
MasterOfTheKeyz 2 years ago
In other words, If you don't say GNU in front of Linux, you are a murderous gay nazi communist cannibal and you should be purged.
trickyD1ck 2 years ago
i'll call it gnu/inux when stallman cuts his hair, shaves off his beard, and adopts a daily cardio routine.
thinkfaster 2 years ago 3
lol!
jpmorgan187 2 years ago
I totally agree that people should remind themselfs that their are not using only Linux OS, but the GNU OS and linux kernel.
If you research enough you will conclude that GNU has developed to a point that only the kernel was missing. They started to build the GNU HURD, was the kernel supose to be implemented on the GNU OS. but linus wrote linux first and and was adopted insted on HURD. People shouldnt forget that, free software fans own so much to Stallman and the GNU operating system.
pentyado 3 years ago 3
I just call my operating system Fedora 10, mainly because its shorter and explains what I am actually using as a distro.
Dejaiin 3 years ago 2
does that mean i have to call mac "mac/bsd?" because they adopted some of the bsd code? whats happened has happened and not knowing what to call it just confuses the new users.
TheyCallMeConfucious 2 years ago
Linux is not GNU (or LNG lol:). The kernel is not just any other software. It's the base onto which other (interchangeable) parts are put on. Linus developed the kernel and used GNU software to make Linux (like GCC to compile it) and not the other way around. Linus made it, he has the authority to name it whatever he wants.
I think it's sad that Stallman so provocatively chases someone else's credit. After all, he should be proud of his own work.
papalevies 3 years ago
Linus originally wanted to call the kernel Freax, not Linux. But even Linus agrees that a distribution can be called Gnu/Linux for the same reasons Stallman calls it Gnu/Linux. Furthermore, Linus didn't do most of the work on the kernel himself, he posted it online so others could patch and make suggestions.
The Gnu project made a majority of what was needed for a fully functional operating system, including the command line (bash). Point is, a kernel is not an operating system.
Arkblu 2 years ago
Saying "GNU/Linux" has always seemed redundant to me. Yes, Linux is useless without GNU. Anyone can find out about GNU if they want, and they will even if they don't want to; but people who don't know, are likely really new to free software. I didn't know what X was until the first time I installed the nVidia drivers, and to a lot of people, Linux is utterly useless without X. Those people wouldn't know how to use a command line. Everyone in the OSS community finds out about GNU in due time.
NoobixCube 3 years ago 3
In writing, I use the term "GNU/Linux" because it is technically correct and all due respect should be paid to the FSF.
In speech, I say "Linux" because it's more convenient and it flows more naturally off the tongue, especially when I'm explaining to non-GNU/Linux users what "Linux" even is.
There are a lot of people who don't even know about it and there's absolutely no need to confuse potential new users with the intricacies of free software's internal politics.
355over113 3 years ago 10
it's lame to think that Torvalds is becoming the second Bill Gates -- hindrance for Free Software Movement.
If only he agrees for Linux be called GNU+Linux. Life for FSF should be much easier and go on with the development of GNU OS.
The OS giants (except Bruce Perens) are hard with their "why 'free software'?".
This makes me want to help promote the use of GNU HURD (the real kernel meant for GNU OS). Too bad, Sir Stallman said that HURD's development is on stand still.
thepreks 3 years ago
I never call it Linux. I call it "GNU/Linux" and encourages everybody to do so. :-)
fulsomstryk 4 years ago 13
I encourage people who don't even know what Linux is to use GNU\Linux.
afarnen 4 years ago 2
I mean call it GNU\Linux. But I also tell them to use it.
afarnen 4 years ago 2
Richard proposes two terms, GNU/Linux and GNU+Linux. It's kind of awkward saying 'GNU slash Linux', and I've found from experience that it sounds better and it's easier to get people to say 'GNU plus Linux'.
In spanish he also accepts 'GNU con Linux', which translates as 'GNU with Linux'.
w2bhc 4 years ago
i just say it like this: "GNU Linux"
afarnen 4 years ago
That is both misleading and factually incorrect. Furthermore, this term is rejected by both Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.
It's incorrect because we have, for example, GNU Emacs, wich is the version of Emacs that was developed for the GNU operating system.
When saying "GNU Linux", it suggests that you are talking about a Linux version which was developed for the GNU project, of which there are none. Linux is, and always has been, an independent project.
w2bhc 4 years ago