Linux is a nice simple, catchy name that i can use to communicate something to somebody. Putting GNU in front when i say linux does not change what i'm saying.
Sometimes I wish a specific distribution, GNU-free, so people can call it LNG (Linux is Not GNU).
PS: Gnome is a GNU project. X.org/GNU/Linux?
Please. HURD is now a low-priority hobby project that a few people are working on for the hell of it. The urgency of building HURD ended when Linux took off.
Linux development only managed to get so far, because many companies saw it as a way to get a cheap UNIX clone, and allocated developers to it, specially due to the BSD litigation going on at the time.
If it wasn't for those companies, Linux would be toy kernel now.
Some people are sick and tired to be "corrected" by the FSF gang. I use the term "Linux". Some people, in a very impolite mode, interrupt me with: "the correct name is GNU/Linux" or other unholy mess that RMS could think of.
> If it wasn't for those companies, Linux would be toy kernel now.
I'd say that without the funding of the Linux kernel, GNU would be a toy OS right now. RMS and co. managed to put together an entire UNIX clone at the time, but they simply didn't grasp a proper kernel for their stuff. Bummer.
The "open source software built by volunteers" meme is long dead by now. Fun fact: people need to eat. The problem with FSF is that they see the World in black and white, when everything is mostly shades of gray. I'm an advocate of the free software, but I got sick and tired of the FSF crowd. Their black/white philosophy won't let them see the forest for the trees. I even had a debate about GPL. Seriously, a software license that protects the freedom by restricting the freedom? Have I passed into a parallel reality where this kind of logic works? The argument of a FSF zealot was: "you know, the train is free to move in any direction guided by the rails". That was the moment I stopped arguing with the FSF zealots as there's no point.
With the "let's rebuild everything" trend I hope Hurd could be brought to light again. Just to shook the view of what an OS is, and how its design influences the upper stacks.
BTW, how many single-lang userspace projects exists ? perl, lua, any other ? lisp ?
Their FAQ answers that: GNU is the single largest source of code for the system; if you look at all the packages in e.g. debian or fedora you'll find that the largest percentage by far is written by the GNU. So if you want to call it only one thing, that one thing should be "GNU".
The only reason Linux itself is not considered part of the GNU project is... well I'm not even sure. I guess it's partly because Stallman already had his own baby Kernel in the works (Hurd) and because Linus wanted his own brand name apart from GNU, possibly. Also because GNU itself started as a "system" project and that's what it mostly does, except an outsider provided the Kernel and this Kernel doesn't need the GNU userspace to work. Linux is GPL-licensed software.
As far as I'm concerned it's a matter of egos and tags. I personally go with whatever distribution I use, which is a lot more relevant to practical matters. Debian also runs on NetBSD and FreeBSD kernels, by the way.
True. But it's a representative way to describe the aggregation of all those projects (and doesn't promote a single contributor (a very major one, but still one among many) above everyone else the way calling it "linux" does).