|
|
|
|
|
|
by cyphar
3501 days ago
|
|
|
> Alpine doesn't use GNU by default. And it would fit into what I call "Linux". I'd have no problem calling Alpine musl/Linux or whatever. > You need GNU coreutils. But you need a lot of other things too, why are the other things omitted from the naming? Calling GNU/Linux also reflects the history of the operating system. This is actually the main reason that Stallman objects to calling it "Linux" -- because you're ignoring the fact that GNU came first (and the reason why GNU exists, which lead to all of the other projects you're talking about). You wouldn't have X.org, vim or many other projects without GNU -- simply because the community wouldn't have existed. > If something requires GNU, i can say "requires Linux with GNU" ... no. Because you can run GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/kNetBSD or even GNU/NT. How would you describe GNU/kFreeBSD to someone (remembering that to users it is basically indistinguishable from GNU/Linux)? "It's like Linux but doesn't have Linux in it?" |
|
|
Exactly like that. I've heard people refer to all posix systems blindly as "unix" and its not worth correcting. If someone knows what GNU/kFreeBSD is, or cares to discuss it, we can discuss it. But generally speaking, I try to keep things concise. When I say "linux" im not trying to go into details, otherwise I'd specify that I'm using arch, ubuntu or whatever. I'm trying to lay down a generic concept of a group of operating systems. And saying "GNU/Linux" doesnt help me convey that idea any better to 99% of people. "linux" is just slang for "gnu/linux".
So if you want to say gnu/linux out of respect for stallman, sure. go ahead. but im not going to.