Exactly. The notions that Linux was before GNU, or that Linux could run without GNU, are absolutely absurd. The GNU project was founded in 1984, and the system only lacked a working kernel when Mr. Torvalds wrote one and named it 'Linux' in 1991. The operating system's proper name is GNU/Linux, regardless of which distro you're using, or what software you run on it.

Cheers

From the great Linus himself. this should be the end of this, I found the show stopper.


Any distro that is Debian based is called gnu/Linux, the others aren't PERIOD.





Stallmen just ate his own words, what a fucking hippocrate


ohh so it's okay for the GNU to advertise there name, but you can't allow other software like BSD to do it? wow holy contradict yourself!!!!

Yea.. it's Linux and thats the way it's staying, Linux From Scratch is what my distro is based off of and I will call it what I want and that is LINUX well really (Awen Linux) but there will be no GNU'ed advertising because if BSD was not allowed to do it in Stallmans eyes why should the GNU be allowed to do it, that said.. i think this pretty much kills this discussion


Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Lin...ng_controversy

Also found in the link you provided:

Not that I really care- to me it's all just politics, but facts are facts.

Cheers

I'm still calling it "Linux" for short. GNU/Linux sounds like the GNU project created Linux. distro_name GNU/Linux (such as Debian GNU/Linux) actually sounds a lot better than plain old linux, but that can get to be a bit long winded. Lazy people like me just want to keep everything at one word if possible.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I don't know my Solaris too well.

It is sort of blasphemy to call it GNU/Linux.

The people crossing swords here are the members of the church of Linux. The innocent people (the non-geek or the end users who are addicted to "user friendly" software) know the One True Operating System as "Linux".). Let it be so.

It is now one of the cases where the belief is much greater than what is believed. Let men see the light, dont cloud their minds with your nonsensical discussion. Make real the universal embracement of the Truth, do not hinder it, lest the vile Vista
pollute the innocents.

ROFL-

I don't really care what it's called, as long as it works.
It just irks me to hear people argue that Linus wrote the entire system,
when the truth is so easy to find on the internet.

Cheers

Of course you are Old (and Experienced).

People who use Linux more or less know about GNU.

It is not a crime to be wrong.
But it is a crime to be wrong and not accept it even when given proof.
Such a crime should be punished by booting the reproductive hardware of the criminal.

The GNU/Linux OS is much more popular as Linux. I would die explaining if I told people at my place that:-

Me: I use Debian.

End User: "What is that?? Did it come after Vista? I heard it is very good."

Me: Debian is GNU/Linux. I dont use Windows anymore.

End User: Thinks..(This guy is a dumb idiot trading in fancy GUIs for a CLI..he he!!!)
U mean Linux?

Medefeated, with no energy left to explain GNU and its ideals) Yes.

End user: OK. Come by some time. I am having some trouble with some stupid message that says "This program has malfunctioned and needs to close!!!". thinks..(this guy is really stupid, but anyways who better to look at my system for free)

Me: thinking..(Dumb loser. He is a graduate in IT. He should know better. Well internet is for porn, dont blame him.) OK. I will drop by when I have time.

x--x--x
End of Story.

Perhaps we should have a poll on the subject?
* Linux
* GNU/Linux
* Couldn't care less

Perhaps you have noted that most posters that state that GNU software and Linux go hand in hand also state that you can call it whatever you want.

While I have absolutely no problem with a distribution stating on their website or printing in their documentation that they are GNU/Linux and would view it as a respectful addition, I will never verbally refer to a Linux distribution as GNU/Linux with the exception of a hair splitting discussion.

Anyone that looks at this thread will see there is disagreement when someone states Linux has nothing to do with GNU and much less with the actual need to say GNU/Linux.

Like all flame wars everyone must have their own conclusions in spite of the fierce rhetoric.

Yeah, I was one of them.

The only thing that will give us an answer here is logic.
Take a look at this;
Linus Torvalds claims that the term "GNU/Linux" would be justified for a distribution Linux created by the project GNU.
As "RedHat Linux" is a name legitimately chosen by RedHat for their distribution.
Jim Gettys observes that there are many other essential components in a typical complete system based on Linux, not only Linux and Gnu.
Richard Stallman answers that, must establish a threshold, necessarily arbitrary, over which to omit the names of the various components (because it would be absurd to use a name as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv), can be decided to stay to two or also a component unique; but any choice can bring to recognize only a secondary contribution (Linux) omitting the principal contribution (GNU).
As you can see,3 diferent statmens.
When I was using Window$,I said to somebody that I`am using Window$.If I want to specife the version,I would say Window$ xp and everybody with some knowlege about Window$ would know that I`am using Micro$oft`s product.If I wanted a third party software,then I would have some kind of a mixed system,with even just one third party software installed on Micro$oft Window$ system.
So.the only logical answer to this big,big problem would be;
Debian should be called Debian,Mandriva should be called Mandriva etc,and just for example RHEL on my opinion should be called RHE.
The main focus in the open source community should be in providing knowlege, to people not familiar with open source, about all the beautifull things each open source distribution is made of and what they can give you.Then everybody would learn the great possibilities within the open source,and that each open source OS distribution is made of many different and great things,by many different and great people!

Ok I can go on and replay to another 1000 replays which replayed to me but:

GNU is a OS. GNU has a architecture. It's architecture is modular, gives the user the right to change the entire system but the changes only apply to him/her. The kernel is a microkernel with as much servers as you want (wether you are root or user).

GNU has a kernel called HURD. HURD makes this architecture possible. Linux is a completely different kernel and results in the fact that the complete OS turns out completely different in every aspect. The only thing about GNU that is left is the apps.

Saying Linux is just a part of GNU (GNU/<kernel>) and just fills a little gap is stupid as hell. Sorry, but I have no other words for it. Inserting Linux changes the entire OS from the front to the back. I don't understand how people cannot get that. Saying that RMS 'only' needed a kernel and Linux fits the bill is insane. DO some study, look at what the GNU OS is all about in the first place and then come back here and say to me, in my face, that Linux can replace HURD in GNU, and that Linux is GNU/Linux and Linux hsould thank GNU and it's history.

Go on?
So far you failed to reply anything.

You're not very familiar with OS design, are you?
Micro design aims to place as many traditional UNIX kernel parts outside kernel space (in user space). This can even be done with a complete Linux kernel:
http://l4linux.org/ (Linux in user space on the L4 micro kernel).
Hurd runs(or is being build for) on either GNU Mach, L4 or Coyotos(No idea if hurd/coyotos already works though).
The micro design with its set of servers sounds good in theory but always struggled with performance issues (GNU/Hurd isn't exactly its best example either).
Stating that a microkernel system allows more user interference doesn't make sense (it's the other way around). Anyway, the result would not "turn out completely different in every aspect".


No one is saying that.
Linux isn't even GNU software.

If you would have done some research yourself, you would have known that Linus already compiled it(Linux) with a gcc port for Minix and added mostly GNU software in it's early state ... and he did thank GNU for that.
See: http://oldlinux.org/Linus/index.html

PS: Not being mentioned on Wikipedia does not make something untrue.

'k...
"Linux was dependent on the MINIX userspace at first."-From this Wikipedia page.
The above is to clear things up. Now the ANCI C Lib: Wikipedia. <-GNU my ass.
Are you kidding me? Have you read "Towards a New Strategy of OS Design"? Well I have, every single word... 2 years ago that is. I for one know exactly everything about the GNU OS design philosophy and architecture of GNU/HURD.
You completely missed the boat! The reason why HURD is a microsokernel is not just an insurance that the kernel doesn't get too complicated as time passes, but mostly to give users total freedom to add servers themselves without affecting other users so that they can customise their account into oblivion without aproval of root.
They started off with l4 but that was totally undoable. Mach was not sufficient for HURD either. They are now after Coyotos but I'll keep my breath with that because they wrote/are writing that in a completely new language.
The problem is that because it (servers) is asynchronimous it is a pain in the ass to debug and that's the problem
The entire philosophy is that user should be able to change everything. GNU chose the microkernel+servers design to accomplish that so yes Linux would fsck up the entire architecture and philosophy! Read GNU's own documents.
Then why do you name it base/conponent : GNU/Linux?
And a compiler makes up for a name? And I should have done some research? Don't make me laugh. You are the one who defend GNU yet you don't even know what it's OS design philosphy is about. Not the slightest. The microkernel is there to m ake sure users can interfere. EDIT: And with 'interfere' I mean tempor with without interfering with other users/root account.

Yes and on Wikipedia one of his comments was that he had already thanked the GNU and felt unnecessary to wall paper GNU everywhere, we know it contains GNU software, he said it himself that he though it was redicious to call any version of Linux GNU/LINUX, if you look at where this all came from it was Debian that started all this shit. so all it's varents can be call GNU/LINUX, but Slackware, Linux From Scratch, Gentoo, SuSE, RedHat, Mandriva, TurboLinux are not GNU/Linux there are simply Linux, you can call them GNU/Linux all you want, but in reality you are only fooling yourself, because no where on any of these Distro's websites are there any mention of "GNU/Linux" just Linux