The whole concept of claiming that GNU is the actual OS never made much sense to me. Like yeah, glibc and coreutils are very major components, but so is the init system, and the package manager, and the WM, and the DE… I don’t really understand why RMS draws the line at GNU arbitrarily other than to stroke his own ego. Following his underlying logic, shouldn’t I call my system Plasma/KWin/pacman/systemd/GNU/Linux?
None of this is directed at you btw, it’s just something that always springs to mind for me whenever this topic comes up.
Because what you mentioned is ahistorical and based off reactionary history by bad actors.
Rms draws the line a GNU because GNU stands for a free operating system, which is what the GNU project is aiming towards. If this were purely a discussion about technicality, then we would be wise to let the matter drop, but that’s not whats at stake here.
shouldn’t I call my system Plasma/KWin/pacman/systemd/GNU/Linux?
You can, you literally can and it would be better that way to accurately describe what operating system you’re running. The shortest possible name is GNU, but that would be unfair to the contribution made by the linux foundation and the fact that multiple kernel projects do exist: so the name is GNU/Linux.
His essays on the topic which are publicaly accessible from the GNU website do discuss this.
other than to stroke his own ego
Rest assured that rms does not doing this out of ego tripping. Maybe you should tease Linus Torvalds for calling his kernel linux and the ENTIRE operating system linux. Torvalds is a multimillionaire who has used an apple M1 laptop. Stallman has never budged on libre software and directs his own life by his own stated principles. Call Rms stubborn, but never call him egotistical.
None of this is directed at you btw, it’s just something that always springs to mind for me whenever this topic comes up.
Please read Free Software, Free Society by Richard M Stallman so that this doesn’t have to keep springing up anymore. There are very few “linux” comm members who have read the foundational literature in full so I hope you do take my advice.
GNU is a project whose goal is to create a free operating system.
Way back in the dark ages when commercial UNIX was relevant, it was common to install various GNU utilities to get a better user experience or get things like a C compiler without having to pay tons of money for it.
The kernel part of the project didn’t work out, so the de facto purpose of the GNU project morphed into creating better utilities and libraries for other operating systems.
When the Linux kernel came around, the GNU software was the base of system. That’s why RMS insists on the GNU/Linux thing.
Things like the window system and desktop environment aren’t really considered part of the OS by folks like RMS (and me, for that matter). It’s probably an age thing - used to be there was a “core” system and various add-ons. The core system is the OS in our world view.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
Ehh… Not really incredibly outdated? I mean most Linux systems with a few exceptions (looking at you Alpine) use gnu software in them, and it is a somewhat fair argument to say that a kernel isn’t an entire operating system and other factors should be considered. Also why the quotation marks? It is a Linux joke, and if you don’t like our humor than you can just kinda… Ignore it? I mean it’s not like someone has you chained to a chair, forced to only look at linuxmemes.
First of all, this copypasta has never been said by anyone at the FSF or from the GNU project. People falsly attribute it to rms even though he has already made his thoughts clear on the matter. It’s just misinformation and a bastardized take on the naming discussion.
I mean most Linux systems with a few exceptions (looking at you Alpine) use gnu software in them
It’s not “GNU software in a linux system”, again, GNU is the name of the operating system. GNU packages were developed for that operating system. Alpine is not GNU, it is a NonGNU/Busybox + Linux operating system mainly targeted for embedded devices. Linux is not a GNU package, but was liberated by Torvalds to be included in the GNU operating system which we now refer to completely as GNU/Linux.
and it is a somewhat fair argument to say that a kernel isn’t an entire operating system and other factors should be considered
Such as the freedom of software writers and computer users. Calling the operating system “Linux” is taking away (even if not by intent) the very principle of freedom of the GNU operating system. It isn’t “somewhat fair”, far too many people who use Free software do not understand it entirely and thus are vulnerable to closing their hands from further liberation.
Also why the quotation marks? It is a Linux joke, and if you don’t like our humor than you can just kinda… Ignore it?
If “Linux humor” is repeating the same 5 or so jokes and endless banter about the same topics then it isn’t productive. Especially if that humor is just spreading misinformation in service of a cheap gag made by others. I’m just calling it out when I see it because I’m done giving a lot of yall the benefit of the doubt anymore.
So any time someone posts the “I’d just like to interject for a moment…” speech, we should now copy and paste the “First of all, this copypasta has never been said…” speech in response, thus making the meme a) longer, b) interactive, c) technically correct?
I love this time of year because we get pumpkin beers and other amber types. They always take me back to good times with my friends during Oktoberfest.
I’d like a beer that doesn’t taste bitter to me. I know this is probably me because I am very sensitive to bitter tastes (I can even taste the light bitterness of artificial sweeteners in drinks). But I’d love to experience an alcoholic beverage for once without the bitter taste.
I don’t think alcohol tastes bitter, if you drink straight vodka it doesn’t taste like much of anything it just burns going down. I think alcohol makes drinks more bitter owing to the fact that it’s a pretty good solvent that can extract bitter compounds from the drink’s other ingredients so you taste them more easily.
Also a lot of beer is flavored with hops (tho most beers don’t include as much of them as your typical IPA) which is typically bitter. I’ve had tea and sparkling water that were non-alcoholic but had hops as a flavoring component and they were unpleasantly bitter to me.
sour beers in my experience tend to be less bitter.
modelo especial with lime juice is about my favorite non-craft beer. usually i tend to favor less-bitter beerd myself such as witbiers, kolsch, or hefeweisens. there are some IPA’s I like and will drink but I find that most of the ones I prefer tend to be on the less-bitter side for an IPA (which means they’re still bitter-er than most non-IPA beers).
lemmy.ml
Top