Yes, the name is a bit cumbersome. I simply call my operating system "GNU", no need to specify the kernel.
Paired with a neat interface (black xterm on a solid black background without panel nor window decorations), people walk confusedly by my computer and ask: what's that wicked system of yours? And I say: "That's the GNU operating system, man!" It never ceases to cause a stir.
I don't want to diminish rms and gnu's work in progressing software freedom and these programs are of course big contributions to a lot of Linux systems. However, I use i3 instead of gnome, systemd isn't a part of gnu, I also use Firefox instead of Epiphany.
Should I refer to my system as gnu/i3/systemd/Mozilla/Linux?
It's easier to refer to modular systems using the one guaranteed common element, in this case, the kernel. It's not necessary to specify every major user-space program.
You are correct, it is not necessary to specify every major user-space program. But with GNU/Linux, GNU is the operating system. In fact, there have been Linux distros ported to run on *BSD kernels.
It's more like this: the whole OS is GNU (the coreutils), minus the kernel (most of which is device drivers). That's why they do it. Or at least why there are those that are passionate about the naming.
Also the reason why, had 4.3BSD not been in legal limbo, we'd all most likely be using GNU/FreeBSD.
You forgort to mention that the actual reason to call it GNU/Linux is not so much these technical details, but to attract attention to the GNU project and its fight for freedom (while Linux is just "open-source").
Quote:
Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit.
This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and inform others of these goals.
Yes, it's the same reason to say Free Software, or FLO[1] Software, instead of Open Source Software. Technically the definitions are the same, but they have a different political message.
Tbh there’s also the growing real need to specify that you’re talking about a GNU userland. At this point it’s not very rare to see Busybox and the many others that exist mentioned while googling for things.
Conversely, if you get a root shell on an Android device and muck around for a bit, it feels very, very different from your typical Linux desktop or server. (Which only proves your point.)
Why not? Some variants of embedded Linux distros have graphic server (Wayland), init system, libc, and toolset (busybox), in their name. It's faster to sort out irrelevant ones.
I used Void/musl as the daily driver for a while; but I switched to the GNU libc version as I had to run VirtualBox for my (at the time new) job, and that doesn't work with musl libc (or perhaps it does with some workarounds/chroot/whatnot, but I couldn't be bothered).
There are some other things that won't work out-of-the-box either; such as the whole Widevine thing, or most Linux games from GOG.com.
None of this is musl's fault of course; but in general I found that for me, personally, running Void/musl on the desktop was too much effort with not enough benefit. I'm not a huge fan of GNU's libc, but it does work quite well overall.
I do use Alpine on my servers, and haven't had any issues there.
Only almost everything of the programs (ls, grep, bash, gcc, etc). Linux is just the kernel. Stallman lead development of most of the shell environment you use today.
what people call "Linux" is much more "GNU" (system tools, commands, shell, system programms, libraries, stadards, conventions) and less "Linux" (only the kernel).
Honestly I think this is probably like 90% of the reason Linux won the naming war to describe open-source Unix-like systems.
You can tell people your startup's web-servers are running on Linux, a new open-source OS written by a guy named Linus, and the conversation stops there, or you can tell them they're running on the guh-nu, or maybe it's just "nu", OS, and depending on which pronunciation you have chosen either start with a bit of the "Who's on first" routine where you try to explain "no, the name of the OS is new" or dive right into explaining that the answer to the question "Well, if guh-new is not Unix, what is it?" is Unix, and in either case your investors have already decided to pass on your company because you made them feel stupid and not in the way that made them think you were smart.
That's a bit of an exaggeration; Xorg isn't GNU, neither is Firefox, or a lot of other desktop and server applications and programming environments beyond gcc.
It also depends heavily on the machine; if you use GNOME then you've got another big chunk of GNU in there, but in my case the only major part that I actually use frequently is GNU libc, a subset of the GNU coreutils (which I'd very much like to replace with something better by the way), and maybe a few others libraries left or right used by some applications.
But beyond that it's just occasional stuff (GIMP for example).
On my Alpine Linux servers I'm not sure if there's any GNU.
It also depends heavily on the machine; if you use GNOME then you've got another big chunk of GNU in there, but in my case the only major part that I actually use frequently is GNU libc, a subset of the GNU coreutils (which I'd very much like to replace with something better by the way), and maybe a few others libraries left or right used by some applications.
Isn't GNOME independent from GNU nowadays, it has its own foundation?
I'm not sure; it's listed on the GNU website but https://www.gnu.org/software/gnome/ redirects to gnome.org, and I can't find GNU mentioned on gnome.org at all. GNOME also has its own infrastructure. So yeah, any relationship between GNOME, GTK, and associated projects seems very weak at best, if it still exists at all.
Paired with a neat interface (black xterm on a solid black background without panel nor window decorations), people walk confusedly by my computer and ask: what's that wicked system of yours? And I say: "That's the GNU operating system, man!" It never ceases to cause a stir.