Comment by interject | Hacker News Reader

Comment by interject | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring 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.

I think most folks here know all of the above.

The point you might be overlooking is that the GNU userland was established back in the 80s. Most UNIXes (there were many, and at least a dozen "common" ones) shipped with AT&T or custom or (later) BSD versions of these userland tools.

GNU was brilliant because it was portable to most of those pathologically differentiated UNIXes, and it meant that arguments and behaviors were predictable, after you installed the GNU tools.

Then along came Linux. Of course it used the GNU tools. Everyone used GNU tools. The different part was that the kernel was free and not BSD (which had recently emerged from serious political and licensing drama, and -- if the old story is to be believed -- Linus was completely unaware of).

Soon there were dozens of operating systems sharing that kernel. The important categorization of them is that they were all Linux. And yeah, they ran the GNU userland, like every other non-pathological UNIX that wasn't BSD. Any other choice would have been hugely surprising (and doomed Linux).

So yes, GNU deserves prominence. But "GNU" wasn't omitted from the common naming due to any hostility or ignorance. It was just obvious, and not new or noteworthy in that sense.

It hurt RMS's feelings, and he has been vocal about it. Everyone agrees that GNU deserves much respect, but many people are turned off by the way RMS has reacted to his feelings of disappointment.

It's not fair, but few things in life are, and many people have difficulty sympathizing with RMS.

Just FYI: the text of the parent's post is taken verbatim from a comment RMS once made but this text is probably best known as the most popular "copypasta" (reposted text) on 4chan's technology board (called "/g/" from the Japanese word for "technology"). You shouldn't reply to the poster in earnest.

Interestingly enough, /g/ is obsessed with RMS and the regulars' attitude towards him is the epitome of a love-hate relationship. The sheer number of images they've produced featuring him is quite impressive.

While I agree that GNU software makes up an important part of a Linux system, I do not see a reason to include it in the name – doing so with every important part of my computer would result in the short and easily pronounceable name Opera/Pidgin/Claws-Mail/Xfce/Debian GNU/Linux. Or something like that.

So I really think that it is perfectly fine to name a system by it’s lowest possible encapsulated unit of software (kernel). In my case, this is Linux.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com