It's not Linux, it's GNU.
You don't call apple's operating systems nanokernel and Darwin, you call them MacOS 9 and OS X.
You don't call Microsoft's operating systems KRNL386 or NT6, you call them Windows 98 and Windows XP.
You don't call Google's operating systems Linux and Zircon, you call them Android and Fuschia.
Considering 99% of Linux devices are Android devices the common reaction to the phrase "I use Linux" should be to assume the person is an Android user, not a GNU user.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Black person
Yes, i call them Fedora, Debian, Arch. What's your point?
now please tell us what's so different between those distributions aside from the package manager anon
Not all software on Linux distros is GNU but all kernels on Linux distros are Linux. You could theoretically run a Linux distro with no GNU software. Why is IQfy so tech illiterate lately? These people wait like 5 minutes to post their shit thread and they don't even know basic things about technology.
I run a Busybox. Sound stupid? Because that's what you are advocating for.
Update cycle :^)
They're GNU distros moron, and you can run GNU distros without linux.
Most Linux distros are not 100% free software, moron, therefore they are not GNU.
The GNU/Linux distributions are:
Trisquel
Guix
Parabola
Hyperbola
Dragora
and a few other dead ones
Arguably Debian, Gentoo, Arch and a few others can be made GNU/Linux by selecting said options during install and sticking to free software only but they are not endorsed by the FSF since they allow the option to install propietary software. You need extra steps to make them 100% libre.
GNU is 100% free, 3rd party shit bolted onto GNU distributions by unsanctioned entities is irrelevant.
In the 1990s-2000s there was a consensus that all Linux distros were GNU/Linux but now the GNU part seems to be getting quietly dropped as more distros allow for propietary or toss the old GNU philosophy aside.
Go look up how many of these distributions still call themselves "GNU/Linux" as opposed to simply "Linux" these days. Contrarian fundamentalist tards like you haven't helped the cause.
t. seething lintroony
Not an argument.
Black person
>The GNU/Linux distributions are:
>Trisquel
>Guix
>Parabola
>Hyperbola
>Dragora
>and a few other dead ones
Are those bad?
I want to say none of them are bad, but they are all a bit of a meme. That's because the linux-libre kernel basically stops you from updating your CPUs microcode which could be dangerous due to vulnerabilities. And the open-source drivers don't work with some PCs, I had no problems with them, but stuff like wifi often requires some propietary drivers.
Out of those, Trisquel is the most complete, works OOTB experience. Has systemd though.
Parabola is Arch but libre and with OpenRC, I heard it was a little bit abandoned lately though.
GUIX is too complicated to learn.
Hyperbola is switching to the new GNU OS that's coming up, so it's pointless to install nowadays when they are deliberately telling you they are not going to be a Linux OS anymore.
Dragora is new and unique, I like the concept, but it has few packages.
Yes and you can run Linux without GNU, what's your point?
wrong
So billy Maxwell kept it north of 18?
Windows XP was NT5.1, zoomer.
what's a bridge player
>It's not Linux, it's GNU.
Is this the shit people argue about when they avoid employment?
Why is GNU's logo a horned animal?
>why is gnu's logo a gnu
if you want to make that comparison, saying "windows" is most like saying "ubuntu". and saying "linux" is most like saying "NT"
neither are wrong in either case, which one is most relevant depends on the context, in my experience whether i'm using linux or not is the deciding factor more than the distro or userspace tooling i'm using
I don't use any GNU suite programs, what pedo Stallmann gon' do ? Rape some kid?
the difference is that macos and windows are distributions, they both provide a single, fixed kernel+userspace+a set of applications
linux on the other hand, is more free-form, you can pick and choose what userspace components you want to use with it, since the only fixed component is the kernel, it's often simply referred to as linux
gnu people prefer to think of it as the gnu coreutils as the fixed component, with the kernel being replaceable, which isn't really wrong, either, though people don't really live on the command line anymore, it's not 1994, you can replace all of the coreutils without affecting nearly anything people use linux for, so how can you call them defining components of the operating system?
i think about it like this; i can take a static linux binary and run it on any linux-based system, regardless of the presence of gnu stuff, i can't run it on a system with a different kernel, even if they have gnu stuff installed, ergo, the binary is built for the linux operating system
linux is a kernel
>You don't call apple's operating systems nanokernel and Darwin, you call them MacOS 9 and OS X.
>You don't call Microsoft's operating systems KRNL386 or NT6, you call them Windows 98 and Windows XP.
>You don't call Google's operating systems Linux and Zircon, you call them Android and Fuschia.
So we call them by their branding. Therefore, we should call GNU what it's branded as: Linux.
moron take