Why is GNU/Linux still a thing? What’s the GNU bit of Linux?
Paired with a neat interface (black xterm on a solid black background without panel nor window decorations), people walk confusedly by my computer and ask: what's that wicked system of yours? And I say: "That's the GNU operating system, man!" It never ceases to cause a stir.
(actually, my setup is like I described, but nobody notices)
Should I refer to my system as gnu/i3/systemd/Mozilla/Linux?
It's easier to refer to modular systems using the one guaranteed common element, in this case, the kernel. It's not necessary to specify every major user-space program.
It's more like this: the whole OS is GNU (the coreutils), minus the kernel (most of which is device drivers). That's why they do it. Or at least why there are those that are passionate about the naming.
Also the reason why, had 4.3BSD not been in legal limbo, we'd all most likely be using GNU/FreeBSD.
Upd: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
Quote: Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit.
This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and inform others of these goals.
[1] Acronym for free/libre/open
Including mindbogglingly complex tools such as wc and y.
> most of which is device drivers
Dull stuff that every bootcamp graduate can write.
I think you've captured the essence of why people thing "GNU/Linux" is such a pedantic moniker.
but, it's not. you can use e.g. debian/kFreeBSD or debian/hurd and the actual day-to-day user experience is pretty much exactly the same
Seems a bit of a stretch to say that providing a bunch of command line utilities gives operating system naming rights.
Android is Linux but not usually gnu-linux as no glibc.
Do any of the major distros use musl or any other libc in a meaningful way?
I'm playing with voidlinux/musl in a virtual machine and it's pretty neat. Just found a couple of non-posix-isms in my programs thanks to that.
I've been considering using Alpine Linux or Void Linux as my main driver, though I haven't had a chance to investigate if it's a viable option.
There are some other things that won't work out-of-the-box either; such as the whole Widevine thing, or most Linux games from GOG.com.
None of this is musl's fault of course; but in general I found that for me, personally, running Void/musl on the desktop was too much effort with not enough benefit. I'm not a huge fan of GNU's libc, but it does work quite well overall.
I do use Alpine on my servers, and haven't had any issues there.
I wonder if switching between musl and glibc makes it change the uname output between Linux and GNU/Linux :)
Linux is a kernel, the rest are just a programs.
Linux runs 20 000 000 notebooks shipped annually (Chromebook).
BSD is kernel and userspace.
GNU is kernel and userspace, but HURD is not ready.
..Ok, I'll get my coat.
You can tell people your startup's web-servers are running on Linux, a new open-source OS written by a guy named Linus, and the conversation stops there, or you can tell them they're running on the guh-nu, or maybe it's just "nu", OS, and depending on which pronunciation you have chosen either start with a bit of the "Who's on first" routine where you try to explain "no, the name of the OS is new" or dive right into explaining that the answer to the question "Well, if guh-new is not Unix, what is it?" is Unix, and in either case your investors have already decided to pass on your company because you made them feel stupid and not in the way that made them think you were smart.
It also depends heavily on the machine; if you use GNOME then you've got another big chunk of GNU in there, but in my case the only major part that I actually use frequently is GNU libc, a subset of the GNU coreutils (which I'd very much like to replace with something better by the way), and maybe a few others libraries left or right used by some applications.
But beyond that it's just occasional stuff (GIMP for example).
On my Alpine Linux servers I'm not sure if there's any GNU.
Isn't GNOME independent from GNU nowadays, it has its own foundation?