LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2008, 11:27 AM   #16
BobRobertson
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Rocky Mount, North Carolina
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0

When I ran SunOS, I called it "SunOS". When I ran Coherent, I called it "Coherent". When I ran Solaris, I called it "Solaris". Dos, Windows, Mac System 7. Whatever.

Right now, I run Linux. It has lots of tools, just like the others did.

To people who understand what Linux is, and might care, I say "Debian".
 
Old 01-02-2008, 11:53 AM   #17
jschiwal
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Fargo, ND
Distribution: SuSE AMD64
Posts: 15,733

Rep: Reputation: 655Reputation: 655Reputation: 655Reputation: 655Reputation: 655Reputation: 655
I think that part of the problem is with the pronounciation of GNU.
The animal is pronounced "New", but GNU is pronounced with the G consonant sound followed by the N sound. For english speakers, it's impossible to pronounce the two Consonants together (unless you want to destroy your vocal cords) without inserting a vowel, which isn't a part of the word. I can never tell if an "a" or "e" or "o" is being inserted.
It is often pronounced asGeh NEW, but sometimes as GuhNew. To make matters worse if you spell it out you are referring to a recursive acronym with contains gnu itself.
 
Old 01-02-2008, 01:19 PM   #18
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
OmFg dUde We sHoUlD Lik3 StOp cAll1nG mS tHere 0s t3H wIndOws 4SwEll ADn lIk3 CalL iT Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) Vista(TM) bCuzz 0f teH CopYriGht adN sTuFF b3cAu5e w3 R geTt1ng Teh sU3d n StufF AdN lInUx c0ulD liK3 Di3 pLz r3Sp0nd!!!!11111one

Seriously now... did you just join the FSF or just read some History of Linux article or something. Do you seriously expect us to type GNU/Linux everytime we rever to the OS?

EDIT: Hold on... your comment says that Linux is just a kernel? GNU is just a shell (if you are using bash that is) and some commandline tools... that's all. Nothing else is GNU. So if we had to pronounce the tools along with the kernel we would get GNU/Linux/X/KDE/Ext3

Last edited by V!NCENT; 01-02-2008 at 01:34 PM.
 
Old 01-02-2008, 01:26 PM   #19
Uncle_Theodore
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Charleston WV, USA
Distribution: Slackware 12.2, Arch Linux Amd64
Posts: 896

Rep: Reputation: 60
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:53 PM   #20
kahlil88
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Mendocino, CA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 170

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
GNU is just a shell (if you are using bash that is) and some commandline tools... that's all. Nothing else is GNU. So if we had to pronounce the tools along with the kernel we would get GNU/Linux/X/KDE/Ext3
Well...Unix was a command-line operating system, and the goal of the GNU Project was to create a free operating system that is compatible with Unix. It would be ridiculous to call it "GNU/Linux/X/KDE/Ext3", because the system can run without X and KDE, and ext3 is part of the Linux kernel, so you are left with GNU/Linux. If you can manage to run an operating system that uses the Linux kernel but no GNU, please tell me.
 
Old 01-02-2008, 08:34 PM   #21
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahlil88 View Post
Well...Unix was a command-line operating system, and the goal of the GNU Project was to create a free operating system that is compatible with Unix.
Now it is mainly graphical and modern OS's today are all about the GUI and their userland apps so it would be perfectly reasonable to also include X and a DE if you were to include GNU. I can't think of a system without the GUI anymore.

Quote:
It would be ridiculous to call it "GNU/Linux/X/KDE/Ext3" because the system can run without X and KDE, and ext3 is part of the Linux kernel, so you are left with GNU/Linux.
Give one example of a modern and capable desktop OS that has no GUI.

Quote:
If you can manage to run an operating system that uses the Linux kernel but no GNU, please tell me.
Use Linux with a shell that is not bash? Let the shell run X on startup along with the rest of the GUI and use graphical text editors to edit files? Seriously everybody who can put together a distro can do that.
 
Old 01-02-2008, 08:43 PM   #22
Acron_0248
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Venezuela
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 453

Rep: Reputation: 33
Indeed, without GNU apps, Linux will be useless, and without Linux, GNU apps could work using Hurd kernel, but c'mon who does it?

Somewhere, when I was started to use the OS, I read (or it was on the Revolution OS movie?) that the word 'Linux' was adopted instead of GNU/Linux because it was friendly, I don't know if I misunderstood that, but it make sense, as I said before, we simplify meanings through words.


After you use Linux (or GNU/Linux), sooner or later you know that Linux is only the kernel and the programs are mainly from GNU, so the name you use to refer the OS isn't a big matter. It is something that have been debated for years and hasn't change.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point of this, I mean, yes if you use GNU/Linux to refer the systems, new comers will know that is GNU (apps) and Linux (kernel) but as I said, sooner or later that something you read about, hear about, watch about....and still won't be accurate, if you install Apache, then it's not GNU/Linux anymore, it is GNU/Apache/Linux, and if I install Adobe Reader for my PDFs am I gonna called GNU/Apache/Adobe/Linux? Do I really need a fifty letter name to refer the system 'properly'?

People can say that I'm exaggerating with this fifty letter name thing, but it will be 'the right name to use' which is the same point of talking about GNU/Linux instead of Linux, right?



Regards
 
Old 01-02-2008, 10:08 PM   #23
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahlil88 View Post
Well...Unix was a command-line operating system, and the goal of the GNU Project was to create a free operating system that is compatible with Unix. It would be ridiculous to call it "GNU/Linux/X/KDE/Ext3", because the system can run without X and KDE, and ext3 is part of the Linux kernel, so you are left with GNU/Linux. If you can manage to run an operating system that uses the Linux kernel but no GNU, please tell me.
What was the euphemism I used earlier??---Ah yes: "Swimming upstream".

I've got it!!!!: From now on, I will call it "Fred". Imagine the conversations in different situations........
 
Old 01-02-2008, 11:24 PM   #24
AceofSpades19
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Chilliwack,BC.Canada
Distribution: Slackware64 -current
Posts: 2,079

Rep: Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
Now it is mainly graphical and modern OS's today are all about the GUI and their userland apps so it would be perfectly reasonable to also include X and a DE if you were to include GNU. I can't think of a system without the GUI anymore.


Give one example of a modern and capable desktop OS that has no GUI.


Use Linux with a shell that is not bash? Let the shell run X on startup along with the rest of the GUI and use graphical text editors to edit files? Seriously everybody who can put together a distro can do that.
Linux is not necessarily a desktop OS, and most servers don't have a gui. So, a modern os does not need a gui.
It is easy to make a linux with a shell that is not bash, but what about GCC, make , tar, grep, ftp, telnet, rsh, rlogin, tftp etc.
 
Old 01-02-2008, 11:42 PM   #25
2damncommon
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Calif, USA
Distribution: Debian Wheezy
Posts: 2,839

Rep: Reputation: 48
Technically we should call Linux distributions, Linux distributions to make it clear that they are they Linux kernel with additional software chosen by the maker of that distribution.

BSD also uses GNU utilities. Is it GNU/BSD?

SCO uses tons of open source software (even though they claim it violates the constitution) so are they GNU/SCO? Or FOSS/SCO?

I do understand the huge difference GNU has made to software development, availability, and licenses. But I am afraid prefixing GNU to Linux is quite artificial. If I run a Linux kernel with GNU utilities, a KDE desktop, GIMP, MySQL, and Apache how is GNU/Linux sufficient?
 
Old 01-02-2008, 11:50 PM   #26
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,807

Rep: Reputation: 234Reputation: 234Reputation: 234
Wasn't this issue "hot" more than 10 years ago?

I thought it was dead & buried.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 12:19 AM   #27
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2damncommon View Post
Technically we should call Linux distributions, Linux distributions to make it clear that they are they Linux kernel with additional software chosen by the maker of that distribution.
Right---I am using PCLinuxOSGNULinuxKDE
 
Old 01-03-2008, 05:59 AM   #28
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,135
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Nobody's answered the question: where would the Linux kernel be without all the GNU tools? Feel free to speculate. Yeah, all the GNU stuff is CLI - who needs it when we've got GUIs? Who needs GCC and all them other three and four-letter thingies? Windows users can manage without them. Don't know why Torvalds didn't sell his kernel to MS, imagine: Vista/Linux...WOW!!

Last edited by brianL; 01-03-2008 at 06:02 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 07:35 AM   #29
proc
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: /dev/urandom
Posts: 70

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Nobody's answered the question: where would the Linux kernel be without all the GNU tools? Feel free to speculate. Yeah, all the GNU stuff is CLI - who needs it when we've got GUIs? Who needs GCC and all them other three and four-letter thingies? Windows users can manage without them. Don't know why Torvalds didn't sell his kernel to MS, imagine: Vista/Linux...WOW!!
No thank you, for all that is sacred, Linux and M$ are not.. well lets just say "Compatible"...yes thats it, we'll stick with that.. for now!

On one hand you have Windows, it has a GUI and a CLI that can be used for some things but not a lot, they have protocols that are not standard, (ie: they don't follow standards just so other software that is not on windows will not work.)

Linux on the other hand, tries to follow standards, they don't force any Windows apps not to work. Linux also has a GUI and CLI, but unlike Windows the CLI is more powerful then the GUI and can be used on more systems.

The reason why Torvalds did not sell his kernel is because at the time Unix was expensive and so was Minux, so he wrote his own variant of Minux.

I suspect that without GNU Linux would still exist, but it's development would be radically different, I don't think it would be so fast pase as it has been.

Windows users also spend more on hardware too, you have to remember being able to do everything via CLI makes systems that don't have alot of ram or other resources able to still become useful, like being file servers or a DNS or even an mail server.

Without GCC (a compiler) that is free or all the other tools, I don't think the development of the Linux OS would be as fast as it is. you need tools to get the job done.
 
Old 01-03-2008, 07:43 AM   #30
jlliagre
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Outside Paris
Distribution: Solaris10, Solaris 11, Mint, OL
Posts: 9,523

Rep: Reputation: 365Reputation: 365Reputation: 365Reputation: 365
Gnu isn't just a set of CLI tools. Every process running on top of the linux kernel is using the C standard library which is (almost) always the Gnu one (glibc).

I agree the O/S should be called Gnu/Linux to give credit to the huge work started in the many years that predates Linux by the FSF community without which Linux wouldn't have emerged in my opinion.

I do not vote to rename this very site www.gnulinuxquestions.org though
 
  


Reply

Tags
gnu


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where can i get a "call waiting" software for freespire linux? xsladex Linux - Software 1 02-19-2007 03:52 PM
list file system linux supports "please give the command or system call" varun_shrivastava Linux - General 4 01-09-2007 08:28 AM
Any way to get "Alice"; "Call of Duty" series and "Descent 3" to work? JBailey742 Linux - Games 13 06-23-2006 02:34 PM
"Function not implemented" error in call to "sem_open()" Krishnendu8 Linux - Newbie 1 06-07-2003 03:52 AM
"Function not imlemented" error in call to "sem_open()" Krishnendu8 Linux - Networking 0 06-07-2003 03:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration