• josefo@leminal.space
    1604·
    4 months ago

    wow, I could read and entire book of this. It’s a new genre of erotica I think. Very high quality

    • briefbeschwerer@feddit.de
      372·
      4 months ago

      I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, systemd/GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, systemd plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd init system made useful by the systemd daemons, shell utilities and redundant system components comprising a full init system as defined by systemd itself.

      Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd init system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called GNU/Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd init system, developed by the Red Hat.

      There really is a GNU/Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the init system they use. GNU/Linux is the os: a collection of programs that can be run by the init system. The operating system is an essential part of an init system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete init system. GNU/Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd init system: the whole system is basically systwmd with GNU/Linux added, or systemd/GNU/Linux. All the so-called GNU/Linux distributions are really distributions of systemd/GNU/Linux!

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        161·
        4 months ago

        No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

        Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

        One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you?

        (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

        Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

        You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

        Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

        If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

        Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      111·
      4 months ago

      I made the joke that we’ll have SystemD/Linux replacing GNU/Linux and the number of “well asckuallys…” that popped up was simultaneously humorous and saddening.

        • magikmw@lemm.ee
          2·
          4 months ago

          I was just thinking there’s somebody rewriting coreutils in rustnand there it is. I’m omnipotent!

        • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
          86·
          4 months ago

          What’s the point? Move from a free license to a corporate cuck license is not something that values normal users, only if you are a corporation and you need a more permissive license for some reason

          • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
            5·
            4 months ago

            Plus, do rust coreutils do anything exceptionally better than GNU coreutils? If not, I don’t think many would switch

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      213·
      4 months ago

      systemd

      and a giant “fuck you” to Lennart Poettering for that. Not for creating an init system option - but for lobbying it into major distributions, instead of letting the users decide what they prefer. May he forever stub his toes on furniture.

      • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
        162·
        4 months ago

        It’s not just an init system. Look up what it does and why it exists, instead of blindly hating some software for some obsessive reason.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          2·
          4 months ago

          Systemd is also horrible project because it has sd-dbus - a dbus implementation, that requires systemd. And some projects(like Anbox) when migrating from abstraction layer to direct use of dbus accidentally choosen sd-dbus instead of dbus. And devs genuenly belive that sd-dbus is not systemd-specific.

          • cum@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            What are you talking about, it is just an init and service manager…

            The rest of systemd is an ecosystem that are optional packages you can install on top of it. They are not essential or required.

        • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          36·
          4 months ago

          I’m not blindly hating. I despise the asshole responsible for the choice being taken away from me for many major distros and I wish him the plague for his manipulative approach in getting there.

          • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
            52·
            4 months ago

            The choice of making way more things than just the job of an init system harder than it has to be, especially when both flavors have to work. Feel free to call generous people who work for the community “assholes”, but it’s you who’s that, if anyone

            • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
              13·
              4 months ago

              People who lobby with decision makers at major distributions for their software to be made the de-facto standard, instead of leaving it to the userbase, have a deeply anti-democratic mindset, and that makes them assholes.

              • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
                2·
                4 months ago

                And what concerns did/do you exactly have? Did you as a “democratic” user make yourself loud instead of crying about “corruption” on lemmy?

                • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  4 months ago

                  I didn’t know much about Linux when Systemd was adopted by Debian. And how would I make myself loud enough for people to notice? I still don’t have the technical knowledge to completely grasp the operating reasons why people chose it, all I know is that systemd was meant to be an init system, and now it is no longer just an init system. It’s in things it shouldn’t be in. I’m sure people worked hard on it but one program edging out general alternatives shouldn’t have been the way of development

      • cum@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        5·
        4 months ago

        That’s weird as fuck. Major distros use it because it’s the most functional. If the other ones were as good, they’d be used. There is no “lobbying” lol, it just makes the most technical sense and is significantly more than just an init system. I’d rather users have a system that “just works” instead, since arbitrary choices aren’t necessarily a good thing.

        • Shadywack@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          4 months ago

          Poettering is a douchebag, a Royal fucking asshole, who happened to code a usable, performant, well coded project hosting subprojects that does a better job for the users than all their predecessors.

          He’s the guy people love to hate, and he’s really damn good.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.eeEnglish
    513·
    4 months ago

    Hnng yeah thats right womansplain to me, whip out those big beautiful FACTS and correct me till I BLEED

  • nUbee@lemmy.world
    503·
    4 months ago

    It would seem that GNU/Linux or Linux (whatever the user-accessing operating system is called) is the only OS that must mention its kernel. No one calls Windows the NT operating system, nor does anyone call Mac OS the Darwin operating system. So why should Linux be the exception?

    When I think of GNU, I think of a project that had a very particular goal in mind: build an operating system that replaces Unix with entirely free software. The project got nearly all the way there, but before they got a usable kernel working, Torvalds licensed his kernel with the GPL. With the Linux kernel combined with GNU, we have an OS the GNU project set out to create. So why should Torvalds get all the credit? Without calling the OS GNU, most people don’t even know how or why it came to be.

    I could see a valid argument to just simply call the OS GNU. It was the name the original team gave the project to have a fully functional OS made with entirely free software. True, Torvalds didn’t write Linux for GNU, but neither did the X Window System. A Kernel is essential for operation though, so I can see why the name GNU/Linux was proposed.

    • bravesirrbn ☑️@lemmy.world
      23·
      4 months ago

      Maybe it just boils down to “Linux” simply sounding better when pronounced

      Just like e.g. most people just say “velcro” and not “hook-and-loop” as the company Velcro itself wants people to call it.

      • nUbee@lemmy.world
        41·
        4 months ago

        And that’s a tragedy because that convenience of pronunciation comes with the cost of losing credit for the group that started the whole thing. Because only “Linux” is used, many people think Linus Torvalds developed/invented the entire operating system.

        Hook and loop being called Velcro doesn’t hurt Velcro the same way because they still have all the credit for making it. The only problem they face is losing a trademark.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          3·
          4 months ago

          Perhaps it is a tragedy that we seem to have lost the GNU part. But in the end, the great unwashed masses get to decide what something is called.

          Personally, I blame the Brits for this, (and NOT the French this time), because of their penchant for trying to chop every multi-syllable word down into as few as possible. See: Football vs Soccer silliness.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      201·
      4 months ago

      “The OS” doesn’t exist. The operating systems you’re talking about are called Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, RHEL, etc etc. The main work of making an actually usable OS from the various free software components others have written has always been done by the teams responsible for these products.

      But we still need a way to refer to them collectively, and it used to make sense to call them “Linux” because they were pretty much the only operating systems that used the Linux kernel, but now that Android is the most widely used OS on the planet, it doesn’t anymore, and this alone is a reason to say GNU/Linux unless you want to include Android.

          • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
            5·
            4 months ago

            Sure, I should have gone further.

            Systemd/GNU libc/GNU Coreutils/GNU BASH/Linux/X11//GTK/GNOME
            Systemd/GNU libc/GNU Coreutils/GNU BASH/Linux/X11/GTK/LXDE
            Systemd/GNU libc/GNU Coreutils/Zsh/Linux/X11/GTK/GNOME
            Systemd/GNU libc/GNU Coreutils/Zsh/Linux/X11/GTK/LXDE
            SysVInit/musl/Busybox/tcsh/Linux/csh
            Systemd/GNU libc/GNU Coreutils/Zsh/Linux/Wayland/QT/KDE Plasma
            Systemd/GNU libc/GNU Coreutils/Zsh/Linux/Wayland/QT/LXQT

            etc, etc.

            There are thousands of combinations of the possible layers needed to make an OS.

            • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
              4·
              4 months ago

              the thing is that not all of them use systemd or bash or zsh or even X11 (servers don’t usually have X11 installed)

              All of them use a Linux kernel and many components that were originally developed for GNU, especially the C library.

              • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
                5·
                4 months ago

                Yes, I listed sysvinit for that reason. And Musl instead of glibc. GNU is optional in a Linux distro, except for the kernel’s use of a GNU license.

              • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
                3·
                4 months ago

                Except Alpine & those based on it, which uses Linux but not GNU libc or GNU coreutils or GNU BASH… Just musl libc & Busybox. I.e. the entire subject of this thread is one of the non-GNU Linuxes.

      • nUbee@lemmy.world
        51·
        4 months ago

        I understand distributions (Debian, Arch, etc.) are what users will use. But those distributions have a foundation to build off of (that’s what I’m referring to when I say OS), and that foundation most distributions use is GNU and Linux.

        GNU came first, and the final piece of the missing puzzle was Linux. Adding in Linux shouldn’t overshadow all the incredible work the GNU project took over 7 years to create.

        Android is a different issue, although it certainly puts a hole in the logic of calling the desktop OS Linux. “[Android] contains Linux, but it isn’t Linux.”

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
          6·
          4 months ago

          This is a rabbit hole. Most software packages out there use hundreds of modules with other names. Heck, I bet the client you are using would require 27 different slashes for this to make sense.

          Sometimes you put a lot of work into a foundation. Sometimes you use a foundation. Pride in one’s work does not always require recognition.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        4·
        4 months ago

        I don’t use those, I select my own components using SystemD OS.

        Like my configuration actually has to specify whether I’m using gnome or KDE, nothing is “by default” in my distro except for SystemD

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
      121·
      4 months ago

      But the Linux kernel was central to the advent of FOSS operating systems. If it were up to the GNU project we’d still not have a working OS. It’s unfair to speculate because maybe the BSD family would have taken over but it’s worth mentioning that Stallman also passed up on the BSD kernel as well. So, really, the GNU userland had to be dragged into widespread success against its goals.

      Also, it’s a lot easier to replicate a basic userland than it is to get a working OS going. I think Linux would have done well even without the GNU utils but the opposite is demonstrably not true.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      6·
      4 months ago

      Because the thing people refer to when they say “linux” is not actually an operating system. It is a family of operating systems built by different groups that are built mostly the same way from mostly the same components (which, themselves are built by separate groups).

      • nUbee@lemmy.world
        11·
        4 months ago

        If I’m not mistaken, you’re talking about distributions. When I write ‘operating system’, I’m referring to a collection of programs that provide a set of utility for a user, such as file manipulation, the ability to compile other programs, etc. Distributions expand on that functionality by configuring everything, providing other programs, and methods to install more. But they mostly build off a common framework, the operating system. Linux is a component of that system that provides the framework. Should it get all the credit for doing so? Personally, I don’t think so.

    • Luccus@feddit.de
      662·
      4 months ago

      I work in IT and sometimes I have to explain something to a user who is somewhat tech-illiterate. Even developers may have significant blind spots when it comes to their OS or networking, for example.

      So, if I notice it, I’ll change some terminology and I may explain instructions differently or use metaphors so every user understands what I’m saying.

      And most coworkers do the same thing.

      Here’s why I bring this up: For whatever reason, some colleagues give female coworkers the same treatment.

      And that’s weird.

      If someone is constantly treated like this, they should be allowed to rant about it on their blog. I’m fine with snark if it geht’s a point across.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        171·
        4 months ago

        Is it bad if I tend to do this except to everyone because I don’t generally expect people to know the same specific stuff as me?

        • Luccus@feddit.de
          20·
          4 months ago

          No. If it’s everyone, then it’s everyone and at worst it’s not the most efficient way to communicate.

          I would say, if you single out a group of people based on physical characteristics, then it gets weird.

          But if it’s “The internet won’t start” vs “Every packet on port 433 is dropped even though no firewall rule is set”, then I think it’s reasonable to make some asumptions and adjust communication accordingly.

          • Mango@lemmy.world
            7·
            4 months ago

            Oh yeah definitely. With that second one, is be requesting explanation for myself!

            It’s really just that when I start to say anything about anything I’m interested in, I get a “why do you think I know anything about that?” a lot, so I shifted gears to the opposite early in life. I go explaining all the things involved with what I’m talking about before I get to the point and people think I’m tangential.

  • BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
    29·
    4 months ago

    What’s the deal with Alpine not using GNU? Is it a technical or ideological thing? Or is it another “because we can” type distro?

    • IsoSpandy@lemm.ee
      25·
      4 months ago

      It’s because we can to an extreme. Extremely lightweight distro. Very nice in containers and vms. One of the most loved ones out there.

    • recarsion@discuss.tchncs.de
      19·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know if people use it on desktop but with its minimal size it’s convenient as hell for docker images that don’t need a lot of dependencies installed

      • AllOutOfBubbleGum@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        4 months ago

        I used it on a laptop for a while. Pretty impressive just how lightweight it is, but a bit of a grind to initially get everything working as expected. Overall, I’m a big fan.

    • Ziglin@lemmy.world
      15·
      4 months ago

      I know it’s very efficient and small (I believe it needs less than 80mib of ram with nothing else running) and that they leave out some of the basic commands like man to save space. Maybe they wrote more minimal versions of some coreutils?

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
        4·
        4 months ago

        RAM usage depends on what you run inside the container not on the image size. If the container runs a single small program it will use a small amount of RAM regardless of the image it’s based on.

        • Ziglin@lemmy.world
          5·
          4 months ago

          I specified that it would be running nothing (other than the init system which is the tty). Thereby the amount of ram required should not vary by much.

  • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
    253·
    4 months ago

    Can someone explain to me why people get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux? I’m not the most techy person, so maybe I’m missing something obvious, but like, objectively, isn’t it just as much gnu code as Linux?

    Again, not super techy, so please explain it to me like I’m the average Facebook aunt.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      605·
      4 months ago

      get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux

      I would say it’s the opposite. Certain people get angry if you do not refer to it as GNU/Linux. These people used to be technically correct.

      GNU tried to rewrite Unix from scratch under the GNU GPL license. They view their copy left license (a license where if you incorporate any code under their license, you must release the code of your project as well) as morally superior. Their kernel didn’t work out, but Linus Torvolds wrote another kernel for that GNU OS.

      Obviously, GNU wanted credit for the OS components that were not Linux. That’s where the copypasta about “What you are using is in fact GNU+Linux…” came from. GNU is the heart of the free software movement so they have their fans as well that of course would also make that claim.

      Of course, as the meme in the OP suggests, you can now have a Linux distro that either does not use code owned by GNU or uses very little of their code. I would argue Ubuntu, Arch, etc still are technically GNU+Linux as they use GNU’s C compiler, their C implementation, their userspace programs like Bash and grep, etc. However, Alpine uses alternatives to GNU software such as the musl C implementation.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        162·
        4 months ago

        Certain people get angry if you do not refer to it as GNU/Linux.

        I’ve never seen this happen. I’ve heard a lot of people complaining about these people, though.

        It’s like veganism. I’ve never met a militant vegan, but I’ve heard tons of people complain about them.

        I think it’s an effective strategy to avoid taking about real issues.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        4 months ago

        It isn’t just a copypasta. As KnowYourMeme points out, it comes from Richard Stallman. Wikipedia has a good article about it here.

        The term GNU/Linux is promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder Richard Stallman. Their reasoning is that the GNU project was the main contributor for not only many of the operating system components used in the subsequent development of modern “Linux” systems, but also the associated free software philosophy.

      • IMongoose@lemmy.world
        53·
        4 months ago

        It’s not a meme, people genuinely get upset about this. There was a post on a lemmy about the Comptia A+ study guide that had the question “What is GNU” with the answer of “It has to do with Linux” and people were writing essays on why this was not correct.

    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      10·
      4 months ago

      The definition of “operating systems” is not really clear. Some say the operating system is what is called the “kernel”. In the case of Linux operating systems, that kernel is called “Linux”. Most people, however, say that the operating system is the whole thing you install. That is, the kernel + a bunch of other apps.

      For example, in windows: notepad, internet explorer (now edge), paint, and all those apps are part of the operating system, that’s what people mean when they say “windows”. It’s the whole package. Other less obvious parts are drivers for example.

      In the case of Linux, most distributions ship with a bunch of GNU programs.

      “Akschually people” argue that the GNU parts are as important (if not more) as Linux itself for the operating system, so they feel like all the hard work of the GNU developers is shadowed by the people that say “Linux”.

      • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
        41·
        4 months ago

        I mostly understand all that so far. My main question is why people get upset at folks who refer to it as gnu/Linux? I’ve seen a couple arguments about it on reddit, but I’m not sure how common it is for people to be actually upset, or if it’s more meme arguing. And I also I have no idea if I should say I use Linux or gnu/Linux since I use Fedora. Lol.

        • GreenSkree@lemmy.world
          10·
          4 months ago

          I’m one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it’s the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren’t as common as they used to be).

          To me, it’s just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn’t, who cares? Like, you wouldn’t say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux… Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.

          • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
            31·
            4 months ago

            It helps differentiate between GNU/Linux users and the five people who use GNU/Hurd

        • herrvogel@lemmy.world
          8·
          4 months ago

          I don’t know about upset.

          You refer to it as gnu/Linux, I won’t be upset. I’ll just slightly roll my eyes at your choosing to utter such an inconvenient word to make a point that doesn’t really need to be made. But ultimately it’s your breath that is being wasted not mine, so I don’t really care.

          You start arguing about it, then it gets annoying because give it a rest. I am perfectly aware that gnu is a core part of the whole thing, I just don’t think it matters that I verbally pay tribute to it every single time I mention Linux. One word is enough to let you know wtf I’m talking about 99.999999% of the time, so I’m not adding another one that’s already implied basically always. Still not upset though.

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
          3·
          4 months ago

          Not the person you originally asked, but the main reason is probably that referring to it as gnu/Linux is 1) already deeply associated with the Richard Stallman meme, to the point that referring to it in that way automatically comes across as either a joke or just a person being intentionally contrarian, and 2) just really weird sounding. In the minds of most people, there is no real reason to refer to it as GNU/Linux, because the actual operating system that does the things the operating system is expected to do - as in provide an API for syscalls, memory management, etc - is just “Linux.” That it’s routinely built alongside a set of core utilities designed and maintained by GNU is largely pointless. It’d be like referring to a hamburger as Buns/Hamburger or Buns+Hamburger. It’s just…weird.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      41·
      4 months ago

      It’s the same reason why people argue about how to pronounce GIF. People get used to doing things one way and they don’t want to change.

    • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
      22·
      4 months ago

      Everyone has to hate something to feel better about themselves. I’ve tried alpine and no thanks. Its great if someone likes it but I’ll just stick with what has been working for nearly 20 years.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        4 months ago

        I admit I don’t know much about it, but I got the impression that it’s great when you need a very minimal Linux system, like for Docker containers.

    • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
      01·
      4 months ago

      My guess: it’s a mouthful and not catchy. “Linux” is short, catchy and easy to pronounce. With “GNU/Linux” I don’t even know if I’m supposed to spell out the GNU or pronounce it as a word, and I don’t know if I’m supposed to say the “/” as “slash” or “plus” or “and” or if it should actually just be silent. I like to type how I speak, so if I don’t know how to say it I’m not going to write it, and I’m not going to like reading it.

      I can totally see the merits for “GNU/Linux” but don’t underestimate the importance of catchiness. Maybe if it were shortened to “Ginux” it could stand a better chance, but then we’d have another gif situation.

  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
    3820·
    4 months ago

    Why are yall so mad about GNU and Free Software movement that it has started? Do you prefer to go to the old times? Apple microsoft fanboys?

    Doing an entire OS and library to not use GNU it’s like Apple doing the LLVM to not having to use the GCC. Instead you could be helping in the free software movement and development, but you prefer to go into a GNU vs. Linux fight.

    The war should be all the free software movement vs the companies fake open source shit.

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      255·
      4 months ago

      For real why are people so hyped about having less software built by people principled in protecting their freedoms?

      GNU and the FSF are awesome!

      • s_s@lemmy.one
        43·
        4 months ago

        Found the Debian user.

        You pure, unadulterated bastard.

    • mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org
      123·
      4 months ago

      Word. Running eyes wide open into oblivion. GNU is a big part why our system is as superior as it is.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
      72·
      4 months ago

      IDK, but I think it’s cool that people have the option. Maybe if you’re just coming up with new ways to do the same things, if they turn out to be better GNU can take inspiration and other distros can switch, benefitting everyone. Or it could just be as a fun hobby, many people do these sorts of things just because it’s what they enjoy doing. I guess it might be the sort of thing you do just to see if it can be done.

    • NaoPb@eviltoast.orgEnglish
      63·
      4 months ago

      Because it’s being pedantic and it’s being wrong. And that’s annoying.

      Software is not named by the compiler used or the tools included in the end package.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        31·
        4 months ago

        GNU project is not just compiler. Is isn’t just Emacs either.