In my opinion it's handy to call it just "Linux". The heart of the system is the Linux kernel, rest is mostly GNU software (and more). Still if you called it GNU/Linux, you would be - if you want to be exact as you please - omitting the fact that there can, and usually is, non-GNU software onboard. Having installed Java and Flash, you would need to call it GNU/Sun/Adobe/Linux. Take on board Skype, Mathematica and a bunch of other apps, and you won't remember the full name anymore. The point is, if you want to be fair, you need to name it after each of the contributors to the system, or if you want to be handy (as most of us do), you just pick a name that hits and stick to that. Since Linux kernel is the heart of it, most people call it "Linux" (and I don't see a problem there).

Then again, why should you name it after the software only? Why not the distribution name? Desktop environment (like "KDE/Linux" vs. "Gnome/Linux" etc.)?

Fact is, without Linux kernel the system wouldn't run. It wouldn't without the (mostly) GNU software either, but I take it the majority of us could more easily code the userspace apps than a complete kernel, and if there was a better alternative for Linux kernel, why don't GNU folks use that instead? Why do we call the other thing Windows, and not "Microsoft Commercial International Operating System Named Microsoft (r) Windows (r) (c) (other_alphabets_here)"? Or why is OS X called OS X and not "Apple's Unix-variant-based Operating System with Graphical Desktop Environment of Apple's Own"?

Yeah, this is entirely a "you can't call your car a car, it's a Chevrolet goddamn!" -thread. And since Linux is a short, easy-to-pronounce-and-remember word, I'll stick to it

...of course nobody in this world prevents you from calling it GNU/Linux or anything else, and in fact Debian is quite often called GNU/Linux and not just Linux (in the "official" docs at least). Freedom to choose, freedom to think.

And reciprocally.
Sure, but a kernel by itself is useless. Linus himself acknowledge that:
Gnu was already quite popular in the Unix world long before Linux (not Linus) was born.

I think GNU/Linux is a bad term. Linux/GNU or Linux+GNU would be better.

Linux existed before GNU showed interest.

Also, GNU/Linux does acknowledge GNU's role, but what about everybody else? GNU/KDE/XFCE/etc/Linux?

Possibly Community/Linux

or just Community Linux.

Then it's interesting to read in your home page:

Huh???
Software that runs on top of the operating system is optional and therefore would not be a part of the OS name.

Ummm KDE does not run on top of the operating system, if thats the cause then everything runs on top of INIT to therefore INIT is the operating system... this is wrong. Since KDE would be the Window Manger/Desktop Environment, it would be part of the operating system.

Secondly, I have no idea why you guys keep stating that without GNU Linux would have never been anything, if you guys didn't know Linux had it's own set of user space software before GNU came around. kernel 0.11 had it's own C library and tools, but was under Linus's own license. infact there was a fork of Glibc that was for Linux want proof? go visit Roland McGrath's website and look for Glibc and it's history. It was not until the 6th version of Glibc did the Linux kernel start to use GNU Glibc!

Stop ignoring facts and get on with life, GNU is awesome like I said before, it doesn't need it's name wallpapered on everything it touches!
You will never catch me saying GNU/LINUX in any other thread but this one.

Frankly I don't see the point anyways, I use LFS (Linux From Scratch) for everything, servers, desktop and laptops, I use a hybrid setup that is not totally GNU'ifyed, I use parts of BSD, parts of GNU and parts of other licenses such as Mozilla, QT and others, it by no means I will start to tack on the other names to the word Linux just to satisfy the people of that license.

GNU/Mozilla/QT/BSD/MIT/Linux sounds just plan stupid and a tad too long for my tastes.

Amen to that. But it doesn't just add the name GNU to it, it basicly says that Linux is 'just' a part of the GNU operating system (GNU/HURD, GNU/Linux, GNU/<enter kernel here>). So basicly referring to GNU/Linux is actually an insult toward the Linux kernel. Oh and BTW: Linxu first started out as a MINIX kernel, so what the hell? If, at all, we should acknowledge Linux' history we should actually call it MINIX/LINUX, or better, Linux/MINIX and Linux/GNU because now GNU is actually a part of Linux.

A kernel by itself is useless. Linus wouldnt need to acknowledge that if GNU fanatics werent cribbing about it.

Of course GNU was "famous" (sarcasm, lest you interpret otherwise) before Linux. How can you downplay the Linux 2.6 effect???

And as I repeat again GNU is extremist and ideological, whereas linux is practical. Linux puts the F in GNU's "FREE" software.

Obviously there is a lot more than GNU is a complete working desktop OS as of now. What is the problem in naming it after its central component, the kernel?

GNU gets enough advertisement from its tools prefixed with "GNU-".

Keep it short and sweet, call your OS by the distro name. But since the name linux will be recognized more readily, you will have to use that name too.

Uh, I think you took my meaning a bit off-center....

I can run gnu+linux without ANY WM/DE so the base system that you must have IS the operating system IMO. Everything else is "on top of the operating system" or should I say it is optional, so there is no need to include it in the operating system name. You can't run gnu+linux without gnu so it is rightly a part of the name.

But a wm/de is not part of the gnu+linux operating system otherwise what is it called when I do not run any wm/de?

Although the myth that Linux contains Minix code is sometime thrown about, the dude that wrote Minix says it isn't so.

Your statement is at best misleading.

if thats the case either is BASH, when I configure server the only way to actually configure them or change something is via SSH because my INIT doesn't spawn any shells what so ever, that said I don't need a a lot of things especially if that system is meant to do just one thing!

Like it or not other software that exist for Linux that is not GNU and is part of the OS, 100% of the Linux operating system is just not made up with just GNU software, for example many package mangers, scripts, and tools and daemons are not GNU, they use the GPL, but this by no means makes them a product of GNU.

And yes can indeed run Linux without GNU, try using LINUX BIOS with a korn shell?
where is your GNU now? And even then I could use a one of the first kernels and there software linux_glibc and such...

What V!NCENT was trying to say is at first the Linux kernel was dependent on MINIX and it was for a while, because if you actually try to make sense of it, how do you make a kernel without a user land in the first place? you need a place to compile the software and test it out. So Linux 0.1 was dependent on MINIX, if you read the post it says no where that there is MINIX code in the kernel itself, but no one said it was not in the userspace

Both of you have an odd way of stating that Linus wrote the Linux kernel on a Minix system.

Linxu first started out as a MINIX kernel...
...at first the Linux kernel was dependent on MINIX...

You may notice in my link above the clear statement that Ken Thompson wrote UNICS on a PDP-7 but substitute you own description there too if you like.

"Linux was dependent on the Minix userspace at first."
http://www.linuxinthechannel.com/minix.php

well, contact gnome and let them know that are a part of the 'linux operating system', should be a hoot. So, if I run gnome on BSD does that mean I am running BSD+Linux operating system? Contact openoffice and let them know they are a part of the 'linux operating system', what am I running when I run openoffice on windows then? What a hoot...

A 'operating system' controls the hardware and provides basic services to other software that runs on top of it. KDE, gnome and so forth is not part of a operating system - it is software that runs ON the operating system. GNU+Linux make up that operating system.

sheesh....

They are in a way and they aren't in another, basically all the Linux OS is, is a bunch of packages that make up the OS, if this box was intend to be a desktop then yes X.org will be apart of the OS, if it was a headless server, a terminal or just a place for shell accounts, then yes xorg wouldn't be part of the OS, if I am wrong, then please explain how SuSE, RedHat and just about every other distro out there are wrong too, (when you select Desktop X.org and there default WM/DE are installed by default), oh and I thought GNU was not responsible for hardware? you just told me it was...

So when there is support for a device inside a kernel but no userland tools how is this (by you GNU guys standards) "linux's" fault... If you are going to call it GNU/Linux then GNU is some what responsible for the hardware support.