[exciteabletom]

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.

[caspper69]

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.

[fsflover]

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").

Upd: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

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.

[smichel17]

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.

[1] Acronym for free/libre/open

[atomicnumber3]

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.

[tgv]

> coreutils

Including mindbogglingly complex tools such as wc and y.

> most of which is device drivers

Dull stuff that every bootcamp graduate can write.

I think you've captured the essence of why people thing "GNU/Linux" is such a pedantic moniker.

[jcelerier]

> It's easier to refer to modular systems using the one guaranteed common element, in this case, the kernel.

but, it's not. you can use e.g. debian/kFreeBSD or debian/hurd and the actual day-to-day user experience is pretty much exactly the same

[scaladev]

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.)

[drran]

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.