Reminder that GNU is the operating system and Linux just one of the kernels.
Get it straight. https://www.gnu.org/
>>54502672
Can't argue with that, OP
>>54502672
>be stallman
>start the project to make an OS in 1983
>clone most of Unix
>all in vain since he can't program a kernel
>some 21yo kid shows up with the perfect solution and makes your little clones relevant
>2016 and that gnu kernel still isn't ready
>b-bitter
But I can use linux without gnu cancer.
gnu is not an OS.
>being this desperate
sage of truth.
>>54503532
but gcc > linux.
I use systemd/Linux though.
>>54502672
because HURD was ready right?
>>54502672
No it isn't, fucklord
>not running Debian/Hurd
>>54505936
>not being a lord of fucking
i use linux (gnu is just one of its userlands)
>>54503473
>added the legs ontop
>legs
>ontop
>>54506335
busybox belongs into smart tvs and dish washers
>>54502672
Which of these fundamental OS tasks does GNU provide?
>Storage abstraction, file systems
>Interface between the hardware and programs that run on it
>A way to start programs
>Interrupt handling and device drivers
>Memory management, memory protection and virtual memory
>Multitasking, scheduling
>Networking
>Security, privileges, separation
>Device initialization, enumeration and hotplugging
Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Components
>>54506961
>Taken from normiepedia
[cititation needed]
>>54503541
This
>>54502672
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.
Thanks for listening.
>>54503541
Try compiling Linux from scratch without GNU (you can't)
>>54506961
It doesn't work like that, buddy. This isn't Windows. With a free OS, you have many different projects working on many different components. All built around the GNU operating system. When you add components, you call it "a distribution", where most components of it, like the kernel, init system, browser and DE are different. To point out, that a distribution is using Linux as kernel, we say GNU/Linux, this is useful because you can't tell a Debian/kFreeBSD user that his system is called "Linux" while he isn't even running it.
>>54507056
You can't run Linux without an components. Linux can run in embedded systems with, as example, busybox, but these systems are not made to be run as desktop OS.
fun fact: the original linux kernel was made for a 386
>>54506961
>>54507127
I see the GNU shill force is in full defense mode today.
I'll reveal the answer: It's “Linux”. For all of them. It's called a monolithic kernel for a reason: It does all of the work.
>ITT people replying to a bot
>>54507213
A lot of that doesn't happen at all without systemd(-udev,logind,famalam) and GNOME (GNU by extension) network manager on a typical system
>>54507213
So you're telling me that my Debian GNU/Hurd system is called "Linux"?
>>54507276
You don't run Debian GNU/Hurd. I can tell because you're using a web browser.
So try again.
>>54507213
>GNU shill force
You are aware that the only goal of the Stallman/FSF is freedom? Nobody is trying to sell you anything, these people are fighting for your digital freedom.
>>54507276
>>54507282
>>54507353
>Nobody is trying to sell you anything, these people are fighting for your digital freedom.
Well then they can do so without being obnoxious egotistical assholes who take any chance they get to spread their propaganda on online web forums for the sake of furthering their religious motives.
They're basically just spamming copy/pasted DISINFO all over the fucking place. I don't get it.
How is that fighting for my freedom? Why not fight for my freedom by spending all this energy making GNU software be less of a complete piece of shit?
>>54507154
I did not say It can be run without components, I said it can be run without gnu shit
>>54507074
Yes, you can.
mach is a useless kernel. if its not mac os x or linux then that version of *nix is useless.
Stallman is literally no better than the Chinese. They are good at copying, but couldn't build a good product from the ground up to save their life.
