GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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........
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.
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?
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.
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!!
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.
Distribution: Solaris 11.4, Oracle Linux, Mint, Ubuntu/WSL
Posts: 9,788
Rep:
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
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.