Nü

Ño.

This is how I am with “GUI”…I just call it Gee-you-eye. I finally went to a class on the subject for real and some people were calling it a “Gooey”…and I…no. Just fucking no. It’s not a “Gooey”.

It is guh-new and guh-nome. Just rolls off the tongue like normal conversation.

Niiiice

For your second point, do you say that you use Adobe or Windows?

I mean, you already know the answer to that. The point is that you don’t have to give the entire context of your computing environment every time you mention some product you use.

Linux is just the kernel.

It’s not only the kernel. It is also the name that people have settled on for differentiating the computer running the Linux kernel from a computer running Windows.

I was contrasting it with the animal “gnu”, otherwise known as the wildebeest, which is pronounced more similar to the word “new”. I suspect more people know the animal gnu than know the organization GNU.

I think you’re right. I think some people say G-N-U.

No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag. permalinkembedsavereportgive goldreply

mmm…gnu/pasta. delicious

Alpine or PostmarketOS works for older stuff. Some others will run Ubuntu as well.

Instead of “Linux on [phone]” try using Debian/Ubuntu or one of the mobile-targeting distros as a keyword

As you point out, what you want is a phone you can run “full Linux distros” on. Ask for that. That request is completely clear and well defined. What does GNU have to do with it?

Unfortunately for them this means that 99.99% of the Linux distributions out there do not qualify as >GNU/Linux, even the ones like Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu that did adopt the GNU/Linux name >scheme, because they all host, promote, or allow users access to non-free software in some way.

You are totally confused. In words of R. Stallman:

“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”.

“Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called “distros”). Most of them include nonfree programs”.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

It was a dependency resolution issue. Npm couldn’t install one of the packages without some package.json gymnastics, and those same gymnastics somehow fucked with our debian based images that we use for development. I can’t say much more because I honestly don’t know what exactly happened. I just diagnosed the issue and forwarded it to our resident node guru, who took it from there.

Adding to your reasons, I think copyleft is great because it prevents the code from being incorporated into proprietary anything. If you shitstains want to use my code while stripping the freedoms I intended it to have, fuck you!

Alternative view:

Copyleft prevents corporations from contributing their stuff and it turns out corporations produce more useful Open Source software than political activists do.

Clang / LLVM is a good example of a permissive body of work that has attracted heavy investment from a number of corporate players that collaborate on its development out of their shared vested interest ( not the threat of legal action ). Despite starting literally decades after GCC, Clang has largely caught up and even surpassed it in some ways. This is especially true when you consider Rust.

Some of the largest, longest lived, and important components in the free software world are MIT licensed. Consider X.org which is now being replaced by Wayland ( also MIT ).

Sure, permissive licenses stop “your” contributions from being used by evil corporations. They also increase the chances that you get to use “their” contributions.