GNU-Linux

It's systemd+gnu+linux these days

Firefox+Plasma+Wayland+SystemD+GNU+Linux
- Amen brother
- Eventually the proper name for the operating system will just be the full configuration.nix file, and we'll all rename our backups to "FullLegalName"OS
  
  In this future, NixOS replaces all other distros as the defacto standard way to manage packages
- Wayland isn't actually a piece of software though. It's a protocol. This isn't like X11.
- Needs more user agent:
  
  Firefox(like Chrome)+Plasma(inc.KDE)+Wayland(like X11)+systemd+GNU/Linux
- I suppose mine would be Proton/Steam/Mate Desktop/Gnu/Linux
- +L+Ratio+You're Bald+It's Joever+Terrorists Win
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!
- 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.
- I'm ~~stealing~~ sharing/redistributing this:
  
  https://feddit.org/post/267802
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.
- https://github.com/uutils/coreutils - I'm waiting for a distro to switch to this, and clang base, and then musl. But glibc compatibility still lacking usually - one day!
Just build ur own os from binary, its barely an inconveniance
Hold my OpenRC.
Soon to only be systemd
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- May he have itchy toenails.

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

Do you want the pegging scenes to be implied or graphic?
- Yes.
- Can it be implied that they're very graphic?
- Graphic is bloat. I only read my pegging scenes through the cli.
Parts of 4chan’s take on the Big Bang Theory may fit the bill:
I am so scared and aroused
- scaroused

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

New fetish unlocked
- Metamorphosis Vore XD
You can bludgeon me to death with those facts baby
Oh yeah, rub my face in those gorgeous technicalities. You want to mock my logical fallacy? Do it. Point out my fallacy and laugh; I can take it.
Seriously. I’d never be in this situation. But I’d be so hard as I died in the floor.

This is fucking gold

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.

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.
- 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.
"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.
- Systemd/GNU/Linux/GTK or Systemd/GNU/Linux/QT, really…
- 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
- 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."
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.
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).
- 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.

A typical ActivityPub+Lemmy post.

And its just beautiful.

Without the mention of mansplain and womansplain this would be funny

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.
- 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?
hey look its the guy from the meme
That's fine. It's proof that both exist and one is deadly.

Anti Commercial-AI license

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?

All the core tools are actually a single executable with many symlinks to it, which makes the distro very compact. This makes it very nice as a base for Docker images.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox
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.
- Yar
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
- 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.
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?
- 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.

I usually see it referred to as GNU/Linux. I always consider Android as Android/Linux to differentiate it from desktop.

Good take. GNU project + Linux = GNU/Linux. Android project + Linux = Android/Linux.
- And if you're talking about all of those in general, it's just Linux.
Ok, but what if there isn't any GNU? Musl/Linux?
- Then you call it Musl/Linux.
- Musl isn't entire userland

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.

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.
- 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.
as far as i'm aware it's just a copypasta, knowyourmeme explains it pretty well
- 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.
- 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.
Pendatry. Very widespread in tech.
- "Tech" is pretty broad. Sure, in software develo—-
  
  nah only /s :)
- error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
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".
- 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.
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.
- When I learned that the creator of GIF pronounces it as JIF my world was turned upside down.
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.
- 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.
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.
- Lignux

Laughs in LLVM-compiled kernel.

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.

This is a joke. Most people are not remotely concerned about these things.
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!
- Found the Debian user.
  
  You pure, unadulterated bastard.
Permanently Deleted
Word. Running eyes wide open into oblivion. GNU is a big part why our system is as superior as it is.
This post has nothing against GNU. It's just a way to bash on annoying linux bros who want to correct everyone.
It's just funny to annoy people who insist on using GNU/Linux
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.
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.
- GNU project is not just compiler. Is isn't just Emacs either.

i use gnu/windows btw

Cygwin on Win7 back in the day was pretty close tbh.
- You've triggered my working with GameCube/Wii through Cygwin PTSD.

.....what?

Ricard Stallman.

💅🏻

No mention of toejam.

Or Earl
- Or planet Funkotron.
I envy the folks who don't understand the reference.
- And yet, if someone asks, I will link it. I'm not proud of it, but I am helpful to a fault.

Ya'll need God.

Posting this from TempleOS

How'd you get internet working?
- Holy Water most likely
- All things are possible through Christ lol

Actually, it's GNU/unkempt, bearded man

All that to say, alpine should probably stay on servers

it should probably stay in docker containers
- As long as it stays off the Formula 1 race track!
You can use Alpine on a desktop fairly easily.
Why?
- Not having GNU as a compiler isn't always a positive, cause it can break some things, like appimages for example. If an appimage is compiled with GNU it won't run without some translation layer or something.

Alpine is a woman?

Alpine is the way

Meanwhile I: "What's GNU?"

Software now has some kind of gendered avatars? This is all very very confusing.

99% of the [thing]_official accounts on tumblr aren't real, they're just people pretending to be official accounts at varying levels of commitment.
the post popular one is probably osha-official who committed so hard they got a misdemeanor for impersonating a US Governmental service
tbf that is the exact image I have of whoever made the original gnu+linux post without the alpine comeback

OP I love your display name <3

i should clarify i am not the person in the screenshot lmao
- I mean your Lemmy display name, the bear kaomoji (⬤ᴥ⬤)

Face it, Linux is just the kernel. You use systemd as your operating system.

Uhm actually you mean ligmaballsnux

anime tragedy climax moment

The alternatives to the GNU tools are largely permissively licensed, yeah? What could possibly go wrong with that..

...People who wanted to donate their software to the public with no strings attached could see an uptick in the number of users?
- People making those comments don't realize that much of the desktop Linux stack is MIT/BSD licensed anyway. It's also not like those "permissive licenses bad" people would delete all such licensed software from their system because the result would be unusable.
- The number of users being those who would rather leverage the software for free, and then resell a walled garden version with proprietary extensions.
LLVM and Clang make massive strides over GCC thanks to its license. If it weren't for many of the infamous "GNU'isms", GCC would have dies years ago.

Ride his face into VALHALLA!!!!!

It just replaced GNU parts. It's a classical Theseus ship dilemma. It's still GNU.

I'm suddenly having flashbacks of the whole SCO fiasco. And people older than me probably have flashbacks of the BSD/System V lawsuit.

I mean, this thing is fun to argue about, until you remember people used to argue about this in court.
- How dare you remind us of SCO.
What? If you replace Windows with free alternatives, it's still Windows? You still owe Microsoft money?
- I'm sure Microsoft would be supportive of that point of view. And with their wealth and lobbying power ... ... Lets not mention it again, and hope for the best.

Windows > Arch

Calm down

Triggered

Honestly? Fuck rms. :D

He wouldn't mind if children did ...
- Exactly. I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted for calling out bs.

Yeah nice but why are you people so obsessed with men explaining things to women or vice-versa?

What do you mean "you people"?
- What do you mean, you people?
- Probably the crowd that uses the term 'mansplain'.
Who's obsessed? It's a joke about a dude attempting to man-splain even when they're wrong (I'm a dude and I've definitely seen it) and her turning the tables on him. That's it. To get defensive about that is... weird.
- More like the author is so insecure herself that she feels forced to use these terms in the belief that they somehow strengthen her position.
mansplaining, noun:

Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(for a man) to comment on or explain something, to a woman, in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner"
- Thank you. As a sentient cleaning robot running GLaDOS, I needed context.
- So stereotyping gender is back on the menu? Are hair color jokes still taboo?
Transplaining is cool though
- Is that anything like transpiling?
I don't think anybody is obsessed with it. It's a problematic behavior in many men, enough so that it's become a meme, particularly in the US.
- Or so you are made believe. How many times have you experienced it?
Victim mentality. Most of the times this people act like this with everyone. Some women just go around looking for shit to fit their narrative.

If it were true womansplaining, her dialogue alone would take 2 hours before finally getting to the point. Before that time, 90% of the readers would have given up.