Can someone explain to me why people get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux? I’m not the most techy person, so maybe I’m missing something obvious, but like, objectively, isn’t it just as much gnu code as Linux?
Again, not super techy, so please explain it to me like I’m the average Facebook aunt.
get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux
I would say it’s the opposite. Certain people get angry if you do not refer to it as GNU/Linux. These people used to be technically correct.
GNU tried to rewrite Unix from scratch under the GNU GPL license. They view their copy left license (a license where if you incorporate any code under their license, you must release the code of your project as well) as morally superior. Their kernel didn’t work out, but Linus Torvolds wrote another kernel for that GNU OS.
Obviously, GNU wanted credit for the OS components that were not Linux. That’s where the copypasta about “What you are using is in fact GNU+Linux…” came from. GNU is the heart of the free software movement so they have their fans as well that of course would also make that claim.
Of course, as the meme in the OP suggests, you can now have a Linux distro that either does not use code owned by GNU or uses very little of their code. I would argue Ubuntu, Arch, etc still are technically GNU+Linux as they use GNU’s C compiler, their C implementation, their userspace programs like Bash and grep, etc. However, Alpine uses alternatives to GNU software such as the musl C implementation.
It isn’t just a meme. As KnowYourMeme points out, it comes from Richard Stallman. Wikipedia has a good article about it here.
The term GNU/Linux is promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder Richard Stallman. Their reasoning is that the GNU project was the main contributor for not only many of the operating system components used in the subsequent development of modern “Linux” systems, but also the associated free software philosophy.
It’s not a meme, people genuinely get upset about this. There was a post on a lemmy about the Comptia A+ study guide that had the question “What is GNU” with the answer of “It has to do with Linux” and people were writing essays on why this was not correct.
The definition of “operating systems” is not really clear. Some say the operating system is what is called the “kernel”. In the case of Linux operating systems, that kernel is called “Linux”. Most people, however, say that the operating system is the whole thing you install. That is, the kernel + a bunch of other apps.
For example, in windows: notepad, internet explorer (now edge), paint, and all those apps are part of the operating system, that’s what people mean when they say “windows”. It’s the whole package. Other less obvious parts are drivers for example.
In the case of Linux, most distributions ship with a bunch of GNU programs.
“Akschually people” argue that the GNU parts are as important (if not more) as Linux itself for the operating system, so they feel like all the hard work of the GNU developers is shadowed by the people that say “Linux”.
I mostly understand all that so far. My main question is why people get upset at folks who refer to it as gnu/Linux? I’ve seen a couple arguments about it on reddit, but I’m not sure how common it is for people to be actually upset, or if it’s more meme arguing. And I also I have no idea if I should say I use Linux or gnu/Linux since I use Fedora. Lol.
I’m one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it’s the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren’t as common as they used to be).
To me, it’s just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn’t, who cares? Like, you wouldn’t say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux… Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.
You refer to it as gnu/Linux, I won’t be upset. I’ll just slightly roll my eyes at your choosing to utter such an inconvenient word to make a point that doesn’t really need to be made. But ultimately it’s your breath that is being wasted not mine, so I don’t really care.
You start arguing about it, then it gets annoying because give it a rest. I am perfectly aware that gnu is a core part of the whole thing, I just don’t think it matters that I verbally pay tribute to it every single time I mention Linux. One word is enough to let you know wtf I’m talking about 99.999999% of the time, so I’m not adding another one that’s already implied basically always. Still not upset though.
Not the person you originally asked, but the main reason is probably that referring to it as gnu/Linux is 1) already deeply associated with the Richard Stallman meme, to the point that referring to it in that way automatically comes across as either a joke or just a person being intentionally contrarian, and 2) just really weird sounding. In the minds of most people, there is no real reason to refer to it as GNU/Linux, because the actual operating system that does the things the operating system is expected to do - as in provide an API for syscalls, memory management, etc - is just “Linux.” That it’s routinely built alongside a set of core utilities designed and maintained by GNU is largely pointless. It’d be like referring to a hamburger as Buns/Hamburger or Buns+Hamburger. It’s just…weird.
My guess: it’s a mouthful and not catchy. “Linux” is short, catchy and easy to pronounce. With “GNU/Linux” I don’t even know if I’m supposed to spell out the GNU or pronounce it as a word, and I don’t know if I’m supposed to say the “/” as “slash” or “plus” or “and” or if it should actually just be silent. I like to type how I speak, so if I don’t know how to say it I’m not going to write it, and I’m not going to like reading it.
I can totally see the merits for “GNU/Linux” but don’t underestimate the importance of catchiness. Maybe if it were shortened to “Ginux” it could stand a better chance, but then we’d have another gif situation.
Everyone has to hate something to feel better about themselves. I’ve tried alpine and no thanks. Its great if someone likes it but I’ll just stick with what has been working for nearly 20 years.
Can someone explain to me why people get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux? I’m not the most techy person, so maybe I’m missing something obvious, but like, objectively, isn’t it just as much gnu code as Linux?
Again, not super techy, so please explain it to me like I’m the average Facebook aunt.
I would say it’s the opposite. Certain people get angry if you do not refer to it as GNU/Linux. These people used to be technically correct.
GNU tried to rewrite Unix from scratch under the GNU GPL license. They view their copy left license (a license where if you incorporate any code under their license, you must release the code of your project as well) as morally superior. Their kernel didn’t work out, but Linus Torvolds wrote another kernel for that GNU OS.
Obviously, GNU wanted credit for the OS components that were not Linux. That’s where the copypasta about “What you are using is in fact GNU+Linux…” came from. GNU is the heart of the free software movement so they have their fans as well that of course would also make that claim.
Of course, as the meme in the OP suggests, you can now have a Linux distro that either does not use code owned by GNU or uses very little of their code. I would argue Ubuntu, Arch, etc still are technically GNU+Linux as they use GNU’s C compiler, their C implementation, their userspace programs like Bash and grep, etc. However, Alpine uses alternatives to GNU software such as the musl C implementation.
I’ve never seen this happen. I’ve heard a lot of people complaining about these people, though.
It’s like veganism. I’ve never met a militant vegan, but I’ve heard tons of people complain about them.
I think it’s an effective strategy to avoid taking about real issues.
I agree, outside of very, very few people it’s just a stereotype.
as far as i’m aware it’s just a copypasta, knowyourmeme explains it pretty well
It isn’t just a meme. As KnowYourMeme points out, it comes from Richard Stallman. Wikipedia has a good article about it here.
It’s not a meme, people genuinely get upset about this. There was a post on a lemmy about the Comptia A+ study guide that had the question “What is GNU” with the answer of “It has to do with Linux” and people were writing essays on why this was not correct.
Pendatry. Very widespread in tech.
“Tech” is pretty broad. Sure, in software develo—-
nah only /s :)
error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
The definition of “operating systems” is not really clear. Some say the operating system is what is called the “kernel”. In the case of Linux operating systems, that kernel is called “Linux”. Most people, however, say that the operating system is the whole thing you install. That is, the kernel + a bunch of other apps.
For example, in windows: notepad, internet explorer (now edge), paint, and all those apps are part of the operating system, that’s what people mean when they say “windows”. It’s the whole package. Other less obvious parts are drivers for example.
In the case of Linux, most distributions ship with a bunch of GNU programs.
“Akschually people” argue that the GNU parts are as important (if not more) as Linux itself for the operating system, so they feel like all the hard work of the GNU developers is shadowed by the people that say “Linux”.
I mostly understand all that so far. My main question is why people get upset at folks who refer to it as gnu/Linux? I’ve seen a couple arguments about it on reddit, but I’m not sure how common it is for people to be actually upset, or if it’s more meme arguing. And I also I have no idea if I should say I use Linux or gnu/Linux since I use Fedora. Lol.
I’m one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it’s the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren’t as common as they used to be).
To me, it’s just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn’t, who cares? Like, you wouldn’t say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux… Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.
It helps differentiate between GNU/Linux users and the five people who use GNU/Hurd
I don’t know about upset.
You refer to it as gnu/Linux, I won’t be upset. I’ll just slightly roll my eyes at your choosing to utter such an inconvenient word to make a point that doesn’t really need to be made. But ultimately it’s your breath that is being wasted not mine, so I don’t really care.
You start arguing about it, then it gets annoying because give it a rest. I am perfectly aware that gnu is a core part of the whole thing, I just don’t think it matters that I verbally pay tribute to it every single time I mention Linux. One word is enough to let you know wtf I’m talking about 99.999999% of the time, so I’m not adding another one that’s already implied basically always. Still not upset though.
Not the person you originally asked, but the main reason is probably that referring to it as gnu/Linux is 1) already deeply associated with the Richard Stallman meme, to the point that referring to it in that way automatically comes across as either a joke or just a person being intentionally contrarian, and 2) just really weird sounding. In the minds of most people, there is no real reason to refer to it as GNU/Linux, because the actual operating system that does the things the operating system is expected to do - as in provide an API for syscalls, memory management, etc - is just “Linux.” That it’s routinely built alongside a set of core utilities designed and maintained by GNU is largely pointless. It’d be like referring to a hamburger as Buns/Hamburger or Buns+Hamburger. It’s just…weird.
It’s the same reason why people argue about how to pronounce GIF. People get used to doing things one way and they don’t want to change.
When I learned that the creator of GIF pronounces it as JIF my world was turned upside down.
My guess: it’s a mouthful and not catchy. “Linux” is short, catchy and easy to pronounce. With “GNU/Linux” I don’t even know if I’m supposed to spell out the GNU or pronounce it as a word, and I don’t know if I’m supposed to say the “/” as “slash” or “plus” or “and” or if it should actually just be silent. I like to type how I speak, so if I don’t know how to say it I’m not going to write it, and I’m not going to like reading it.
I can totally see the merits for “GNU/Linux” but don’t underestimate the importance of catchiness. Maybe if it were shortened to “Ginux” it could stand a better chance, but then we’d have another gif situation.
Lignux
Which when you try to say it as written sounds like some degenerate version of “lick nuts” which is possibly not intended?
Lignux balls)) Btw, I personally like it, shame it won’t spread.
Everyone has to hate something to feel better about themselves. I’ve tried alpine and no thanks. Its great if someone likes it but I’ll just stick with what has been working for nearly 20 years.
I admit I don’t know much about it, but I got the impression that it’s great when you need a very minimal Linux system, like for Docker containers.