Tell me more ×
Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -10 down vote favorite
1

Some guys insist (and of course Stallman) that the O/S which is in most case "linux distro" is called GNU/Linux family, not just Linux. Is this still relevant today? Since to create complete O/S we need other tools/utility/apps that is not linux, but today may be only half of them are GNU software..

share|improve this question
Meta discussion – Michael Mrozek♦ Sep 8 '10 at 14:14

closed as not constructive by Gilles, Sandy, xenoterracide♦ Sep 8 '10 at 16:39

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

5 Answers

up vote 8 down vote

From my point of view - as far as we exclusively use GNU toolchain for kernel compilation it should be GNU/Linux.

share|improve this answer
You don't have to use the compilers. The point is whole libc, system libraries and programs you use. GNU's. – XTL Mar 23 '12 at 6:42
up vote 5 down vote

It's quite true that GNU is not the only organisation to contribute non-kernel software to a working GNU/Linux system, though GNU software is a very large and important part. So there isn't a cast-iron argument that you absolutely have to call it GNU/Linux. But consider what Richard Stallman and GNU have contributed, and how little they ask in return. You don't have to pay money, you don't have to sign a licence agreement, and you have all the Freedoms that Free Software gives you. If all they want for that is for you to call it "GNU/Linux", is that really so hard?

share|improve this answer
if they finish Hurd, I would love to call it GNU/Hurd. but that "asking for credit" is one of thing that made the controversy – uray Sep 6 '10 at 17:16
There's been running GNU/Hurd and GNU/FreeBSD (in Debian, not in theory) for a while already. Obviously it's not the most big and popular and featureful as GNU/Linux. – XTL Mar 23 '12 at 6:45
up vote 4 down vote

Well. It depends how exact you need to be. For example:

  • If you are asked by someone who uses browser Windows and operating system Google (;) ) use Linux
  • If you are talking about embedded Linux (like difference between GNU/Linux and embedded Linux), GNU operating system familly (differences between GNU/Linux GNU/kFreeBSD) use GNU/Linux
  • If you are talking about differences between userland and kernel use GNU/Linux for system and Linux for kernel
  • If none above apply and there is no need to disambiguate the difference use Linux, GNU/Linux or my personal choice (GNU/)Linux
share|improve this answer
up vote 2 down vote

My car is a Ford and needs tyres, at the moment I have Michelin tyres installed.

Should I refer to my car as a Michelin/Ford?

Presumably Stallman would say yes, as Bibendum obviously deserves credit for making the tyres.

However, I would imagine that if I said that I drove a "Michelin/Ford" and tried to persuade other people to refer to it as such, everybody would think I was a complete arse.

If I was Bibendum, everybody would also say that I was only insisting on the "Michelin/" because of my relationship with the company.

OK, the analogy is only an analogy, but is it that bad?

share|improve this answer
11  
But you call your car a "Ford" because most of it is made by Ford. That's why RMS wants your OS, most of which is GNU, to include the name "GNU". Calling it "Linux" is more like calling your car a "Michelin". – Peter Westlake Sep 6 '10 at 16:35
if this is all about who make most contribution, why there are no one calling it Linux/GNU, there will be no OS without kernel (and probably viceversa), naming it GNU/Linux is like saying this is GNU OS with some "litle bonus" of Linux inside it – uray Sep 6 '10 at 17:20
1  
It IS a GNU OS with a little "bonus" of Linux inside it. – XTL Mar 23 '12 at 6:42
There seems to be no problem calling a race team McLaren Mercedes etc. That's closer to analogy, since Linux is a little more integrated to GNU/Linux than tyres on a car. – XTL Mar 23 '12 at 6:46
Don't forget the make of your car radio! And besides, most of the pieces in your "Ford" car were made by others and just assembled by Ford, they deserve credit too. So your car's make turns out to be some 1MiB string ;-) – vonbrand Jan 21 at 4:24
show 1 more comment
up vote 1 down vote

From my point of view, "GNU/Linux" label is pure marketing from GNU supporters.

Many Unix (not only Linux) distributions have GNU tools installed, starting with gcc. Many tools with other licences are installed as well on these distributions.

Should we say GNU/BSD/Ubuntu or BSD/GNU/Mac OS X ?

share|improve this answer
6  
There is GNU/kFreeBSD which is FreeBSD kernel with GNU userland as opposed to FreeBSD which is kernel + userland. – Maciej Piechotka Sep 6 '10 at 14:08
The percentage of free software which is protected by GNU General Public License and GNU Lesser General Public License is more than 50% of all free software. The precise number differs depending on whether you measure by lines of code or by number of projects. See for example blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses – Ole Tange May 17 '11 at 18:32
GNU/Linux refers to the combination of a Linux kernel with GNU programs to form a usable OS that is the core of nearly all Linux distros. Regardless of whether it is relevant, the term has a meaning. What is GNU/BSD/Ubuntu supposed to mean? Mac OS X uses mostly BSD-style commands, and very few GNU ones. Strictly speaking its kernel isn't BSD either - it's a hybrid of Mach and BSD stuff. BSD/GNU/Mac OS X is thus mostly nonsensical as well. – jw013 Dec 31 '11 at 1:58

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.