I think it is a grave disrespect to RMS to refer to GNU/Linux systems as “Linux” alone. He made a significant contribution and asked only attribution in return, you should not take that away from him.

I would still say that GNU/Linux is more correct than Linux although it is a pita to say that every time.

Personally I care more about Free Software than about Linux. If Ubuntu would start using another kernel, I would be fine with that. That’s why I always say I run “Ubuntu” (and not “Linux” or “Ubuntu Linux”) or “Free Software”.

“What OS do you use?”
“Linux”
“You mean GNU/Linux?”
“Yeah… Actually, Ubuntu”
“Ah, ok”

Most of us use the distribution name (or the release name as in Feisty, Dapper, Gutsy and etc..) when talking amongst each other. Few people really say Gnu/Linux when talking to other Linux enthusiasts.

The only time that full name would be comming up was when explaining Linux to outsiders. And I guess there is no harm in dropping the Gnu acronym and briefly mentioning their contribution once in a blue moon. For example when I go over operating systems in the classroom I will put Gnu/Linux on the lecture slides and mention Gnu, but then refer to the OS as Linux from that point on because it’s shorter.

And when someone will ask me what systems I’m running I will answer : Kubuntu on Dapper, Ubuntulite on Feisty and XP for gaming.

LINUX is obviously a portmanteau of Linux, GNU, and x — it just looked like Li-GNU-X at one point in time, forming the word LiGNUX. Of course, this was unintelligible to the point of being unpronounceable, so people did the smart thing: made the G a silent one, as in ‘knight’. This made everyone happy for a time, because the word was a perfect blend of all the obscure parts that only a few people cared about — that was, until a rogue journalist arrived at an open-source convention, and mistranscribed the name.

And thus the FOSS world was forever saddled with the monstrosity that is ‘Linux’. Only capitalization of the name retains the true spirit of Li(G)NUx.

Side Tangent: I thought that the Linux kernel wasn’t monolithic because you could add/remove modules as needed.

What it comes down to is that all “Linux distros” are an integration project of software from many sources. We need to be sure to keep reminding people that there is no “true linux distro” because there are so many ways to do the integration tasks.

-james.

glibc, gnu tools, and the chain tools made what is the core of the operating system

the GNU project is only the project rewritting the unix core utilities and the C library to execute posix unix programs.

it’s only that. nothing more, “gnu is not unix”, because GNU is to be exactly unix and more but still without using even one line of original unix source code.

but, that really thing, is at the _core_ of what we are using now.

you can go where you want, you always fall on GNU stuff before the kernel. and the gnu libc is so important in the use of the operating system, it even has more influence than the kernel.

broke the glibc and nothing else works, change a linux kernel system call and still you can manage to just patch some critical package upon it (glibc, hal , udev … ) and have a working system to start.

if you removed the gnu stuff and write your own system environnement with your own ideas, the “linux operating” would be VERY different.

even if you keep the same kernel.

the api would be different, the way to boot and use the computer would be very different

in fact, you use a Gnu+linux operating system

not a kernel linux operating system

not a flash+apache+kernel operating system

it’s really gnu+linux kernel which made the “personnality”, the “feel” of what we call “linux”.

–

Stallman of course never stated GPL project are gnu. _never_ and hopefully !! else the FSF would be forced to assume copyright and responsibility for thousands of independent project ! so _no_

they simply tell : “what you call and use is made of the gnu stuff+kernel, it is the core of what is the “operating system”. neither apache, neither X, neither kde, neither gimp are making the core “linux” experience. it’s gnu+linux kernel ” .

—
in fact, years before Linux, I already used the “gnu” stuff. it was upon solaris or aix. not sold with it but you could download the whole package. for example the sunfreeware server had packages of gnu tools for solaris and sun os.

even X11 (the very Xfree86 project) existed _before_ linux.

many common stuff now on linux ,existed before the linux kernel.

the linux kernel did not invent “linux operating system” in fact.

linux could be very different, very “un-unix” if people reinvented a new environnement for linux instead of taking gnu or reinvent unix/bsd things.

of course, X11 would have been not useable and people forced to invent something else.

everything is influenced by the choice of using the gnu project upon the kernel.

Glibc is _very_ central.

we really use gnu/linux , not gnu/hurd , not bsd/linux , not gdi32/linux , not darwin/linux

–
ubuntu is gnome/gnu/linux

kubuntu is kde/gnu/linux

but we accept an operating systems is before the graphical interface (and I think it’s a sane way of thinking so we stop to the gnu ).

–
utopia project (hal, udev, dbus) is new. it’s changing linux, it’s no more “hey ! we just need to copy unix and be happy with gnu project”

maybe in a few years, it will be time to think if we still use gnu/linux
or freedesktop/linux (freedesktop being where utopia project was matured, but, is it really a project? an organisation ? a mere forum ??)

it would be a Great Debate for the one hundred of geeks in the world being angry with the mistake ?

the world will be happy enough with the name “ubuntu” !

but, yes, technically, sometimes in my work, I need to know than, yes, I work with ” gnu/linux ” system. that knowledge help me tremendously to understand the choice, the design, the way of working and to find great documentations and enlightenment.

In my home, the name “Ubuntu” is all I need to know.

I hope my comment will help you why people are sometime adamant (for good reason) about that “linux naming” thing

and it will help to understand, it’s not simply Stallman, and he never stated “haha we invented EVERYTHING and Everything is GNU, we are so great”

Many people ask, for example, what the command is called to do so and so in Linux, when they are talking about a GNU command.

Please understand what you are talking about before writing such a long post about it If you had, you wouldn’t have gotten into such strawman arguments as “anything under the GPL might be considered GNU software”, which Stallman & friends NEVER stated — it’s just you speculating on their reasons.