Why you shouldn't call your OS "Linux"

[sss0]

Advertising

it's not only because it has GNU software. It's also because if no GNU, no Linux would be available. GNU set up a precedent and also made such UNIX tools available for free and free to modify as well. I support GNU/Linux name, as does Debian, which is the most open distro all around.

I always have a good time when someone says to use Debian and I question "Debian GNU/Linux", "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD" or "Debian GNU/HURD"?
It is one of the most "physical" arguments you can give. People tend to get it right after I explain based on this

[joevar]

Advertising

"GNU Slash Linux" is ugly. May I shorten it to Gux? (Gux Uses linuX)

[m0skit0]

Stallman is a bit... unmarketing I just called it GNU-Linux.

[asgard20032]

GNU/Linux = GNU divided by Linux, SO NO... (even if I call it that way normally, I will soon stop calling it GNU/Linux)
GNU-Linux = GNU minus Linux, SO NO AGAIN...
GNU+Linux = Good
GNU & Linux = Good

[snailface]

Linux users should use 'Linux' as the name of the OS. The important thing is not using the correct semantics, but the detrimental effects of one OS category that can be called 50,000 things. Potential users are intimidated by this initial complexity and it drives them off before they even give it a try.

If the goal is to keep Linux a niche OS for tech enthusiasts, by all means, debate away.

[sss0]

Linux users should use 'Linux' as the name of the OS. The important thing is not using the correct semantics, but the detrimental effects of one OS category that can be called 50,000 things. Potential users are intimidated by this initial complexity and it drives them off before they even give it a try.

If the goal is to keep Linux a niche OS for tech enthusiasts, by all means, debate away.

False.

It is important to use 'GNU/Linux' so that the one-time goal of having a free operating system, and the continuing goal of freeing as much software as possible is communicated to new users.

It is preferable to have fewer people using GNU/Linux than having people gladly installing nonfree software on the OS and seeing nothing wrong or contradictory about that.

It is not about credit, but about communicating the goal of freedom.

[FrEdDy]

Torvalds himself said that arguing over the name is stupid. Nobody calls their OS "GNU Linux", they either call it "Linux" or the name of the distribution, which is more correct imo.
And I don't see how calling it "Linux" kills freedom.

[m0skit0]

This debate is useless. Stallman brought this debate because he felt like ignored by all this while GNU tools are as important as the kernel itself, yet the system was called plain Linux. GNU/Linux is more correct, but Linux is what's used, so why even argue over it? Just get over it

Also, IMHO Torvalds is just overestimated. Stallman never got as much recognition over his work despite being THE free software father and absolute guru, and the guy that made "free software" a real-life concept with all the associated philosophy. Linus is getting way too much credit for stuff he didn't even do all by himself (like Linux kernel), contrary to Stallman which basically set up the whole free software movement, and started writing free software even before Linus ever heard of it. Do not forget that all UNIX-like tools and specially the GNU C Compiler (which was used to compile the Linux kernel) were started by Stallman. When receiving the "Linux award", Stallman stated that: "This is like giving the Han Solo Award to the Rebel Army". Absolutely true

[sss0]

Doctor Richard M. Stallman - Saint IGNUcius, of the Church of the Emacs.


Lord of:

GPL
GCC
GDB
gmake
coreutils
GNU itself, basically
Emacs
Lisp Machines, Inc.
Free Software Foundation

He practically created free software. The last true hacker, as usually called, he was getting outraged at xerox and writing his own free software to distribute before anyone even thought about that.