Hacker News Reader

Comment by e12e | Hacker News Reader

As Stallman is fond of (rightly) remarking: Linux is not an operating system.

I wonder if this (if it will ever be released as Free software), Unity, some other Gnome or Plasma Active/mobile will be the first real alternative to Linux/Android...

I'd love to have something with Linux+Android hw support and powersavings, but with at different software stack on top of the kernel...

View on HN

So we should be talking about GNU/Linux and Android/Linux?

> As Stallman is fond of (rightly) remarking: Linux is not an operating system.

"Linux" is commonly used as a brand for the ecosystem of bits, media, and community around the kernel. It makes sense as a default meaning, so that's how most people use it.

Sure, but those people should learn how to say it properly.

Fortunately, Linus won't insult me for preferring a different pronunciation. I'll use his pronunciation if I ever have the opportunity to speak to (or around) him.

Iirc, Linus doesn't care about calling it Linux v GNU/Linux

That's the joke. Stallman acolytes tut-tut any usage of "Linux" that isn't referring to the kernel. The rest of the world happily uses the term for all contexts with no confusion. In fact, talking about the kernel is the only time it could be confusing. We have "Linux kernel" for that lone source of confusion.

The Linux kernel is at the center of the Linux ecosystem. The Linux ecosystem has many Linux distributions based on the Linux kernel. Words are flexible, and language has tools to deal with confusion.

  > The Linux ecosystem has many Linux distributions based on the Linux kernel.

There are many operating system distributions that run the Linux kernel. But something like Debian/kFreebsd or illumos are in many ways quite similar to other distributions like Ubuntu -- without running on Linux.

The Linux kernel is a tremendously important piece of the Free software world we live in -- but it isn't a userland -- and I don't understand why people that actually understand the difference gets so worked up about it.

The GNU userland is important. The Gnome project is important. Xorg is important. The Apache foundation software is important. I don't see why people insist on labelling these things "Linux".

The GNU name actually makes sense: GNU's not unix. But it's close. You can compile GNU software and run it on Microsoft Windows. Or under OS X. GNU is a platform. Sort of.

"GNU/Linux" is clunky. And I'm badgered with it any time I use the much less clunky "Linux." The people pushing the RMS-approved term hardest have no concept of presentation, and it turns people off of listening. I would be instantly associated with the worst pushers of the term if I started using it, so it's a nonstarter.

Edit: GNU would get more attention if the FSF partnered with major Linux distribution vendors to give GNU a prominent placement in installers, documentation, and marketing. RMS peeing a line at the unmarketable "GNU/Linux" is only going to alienate people.

Debian

I meant an actual partnership, with co-branding and everything. A mention of GNU buried in a page most people aren't going to look at won't have the desired effect. Look at the website for any convention and you'll see what I mean. For example: http://www.e3expo.com/splash/

And hopefully it'll work better than this: http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/29/linux-car-first-to-crash-...

So by that reasoning, we should call it Linux when it runs an Android or Sailfish userland as well? Or does Android "make more sense" because it has stronger branding? Is it still Android if it's a fork?

GNU runs fine on top of Solaris, freebsd and to a certain extent (certain definitions of fine :) Microsoft Windows and OS X.

Linux runs fine without GNU (as eg: "Android").

I understand that for a lot of people the distinction seems trivial -- I guess I appreciate the GNU part a lot more after being exposed to Solaris 8 and ancient *BSD installs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com