Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
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.
Even though the correct term is GNU/Linux, I can honestly say I still called it linux maybe it's just by habit. How about you?
it depends on what I actually mean. If I mean the pure OS (that is, the kernel), I call it "Linux", of course. If I refer to the complete, fully usable entity, I'd rather call it "a Linux-based system", or, getting more specific, a particular Linux distro.
Sorry, no direct vote in your poll, it doesn't differentiate sufficiently.
i usually refer to it by the specific distro... but i can understand rich stallman/fsf drive to call it gnu/linux. if i worked on a large (possibly largest) component of a system yet someone else gets the noteriety i'd be frustrated as well.
I, too, call it "Linux" for short, but IMHO, both are wrong; each distro is an individual OS where Linux is the core kernel, and the rest is built/added with GNU tools. You've never heard anyone referring to Windows as "C+/DOS" have you?
I know linux is just the kernel and GNU/Linux is the kernel and the gnu utilities and distro refers to both plus miscellaneous applications.
Even though some of us knows this we still use the term Linux or GNU/Linux in conversions or in writing. Even article writers use one of these terms when talking about linux as the whole OS. It's weird but it happens everywhere
I, too, call it "Linux" for short, but IMHO, both are wrong; each distro is an individual OS where Linux is the core kernel, and the rest is built/added with GNU tools. You've never heard anyone referring to Windows as "C+/DOS" have you?
Bill Gates is reported to have a pool at his mansion shaped in the in the letters of C+/DOS. This is not true, but it is what we are reporting.
in a very relaxed, colloquial context I sometimes do that, too - knowing that, counting beans, it isn't entirely correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bill
each distro is an individual OS where Linux is the core kernel
No. Each distro is a pre-packaged software bundle with Linux as its OS (by the way, "core kernel" is a pleonasm).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bill
You've never heard anyone referring to Windows as "C+/DOS" have you?
That's a different story. "Windows" is a marketing term referring to the whole package consisting of an OS, a GUI, a desktop environment, and a few simple applications. Contrasting to that, "Linux" is, strictly speaking, only the OS.
I voted GNU/Linux, but truthfully until recently I just used Linux.
In written communications I have tried to learn to use GNU/Linux and have come to think it is important, especially when communicating with people unfamiliar with it in either usage - it plants the seed, "What is this GNU?".
In spoken useage I mostly use Linux because speaking "GNU/Linux" just doesn't roll off the tongue! But I do always make a point to mention GNU at some point just to raise it in the listener's mind.
In another thread here today I mentioned how I was introduced to (GNU/)Linux, and at the time I did not really register the distinction, although my own Linux-mentor was a champion of GNU and clearly knew the value of each. The value to myself at the time was all about access to gcc, the GNU toolchain and the shell. I thought of it as Linux, but in retrospect the real value was GNU, Linux was the delivery mechanism.
We would not have the one without the other, but GNU does not receive the respect and recognition it deserves, even from those who know better, and we should work to remedy that.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.