Two things. Linux certainly does have a difficult learning curve, at least compared to Windows and OSX. I’m currently in Fedora 39 and I had to dig up some terminal commands off the internet just so I wasn’t choosing between 100% and 200% scaling. That’s just beyond the average computer user.
Secondly, I wish people could stop trying to teach everyone that Linux isn’t the OS. Anyone that cares already knows, and anyone that doesn’t know doesn’t care.
Secondly, I wish people could stop trying to teach everyone that Linux isn’t the OS. Anyone that cares already knows, and anyone that doesn’t know doesn’t care.
Ironically, the people who need to hear this don’t care.
It’s 100% stallman trying to coat-tails Linus.
What I’ve learned in 30 years of using Linux is the gnu/Linux distinction only matters to the kind of whacko I can’t work with. It’s a great mineshaft canary to let me know whom not to invest any time in.
Linus wrote a kernel, and GNU wrote the majority of the userspace at the time.
How is that coat-tails-ing? Both projects had a tremendous amount of effort poured into them. And let’s not forget GCC was the only free compiler for 20 years.
If people were asking for it to be called “GNU” only, then it’d be unfair. But they aren’t.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that common misconceptions somehow become correct, just that having that discussion with someone who doesn’t care is pointless. Also, pedantic discussions like that are something that might turn people off from trying out Linux
I know the name ‘Linux’ is used to identify a family of OSs, but in reality it is actually only the kernel (the part of the system that allows hardware and software to communicate)
This is exactly what people mean when they say GNU/Linux. They are trying to say that it is “the GNU Operating Syatem” with the Linux kernel.
This nonesense though. Please ignore them.
Linux Mint is an operating system. It uses the Linux kernel. The fact that it includes a handful of GNU packages in no way justifies co-opting the branding. Linux Mint includes A LOT of software from many sources. Are you going to try to list them all in the name?
Actually, Linux is just the kernel, not the whole OS. The full operating system is called GNU/Linux because it combines the Linux kernel with GNU tools. Teaching people about GNU and why it was made is important. It’s not just about using software but understanding the freedoms behind it – the freedom to use, study, modify, and share. Free Software is about more than just open-source, it’s about user freedom, and that’s a crucial distinction. Now, I’m not forcing you to say GNU/Linux, I say Linux most of the time myself, but you should still teach people about GNU.
Actually that is a common misconception by people who have read political blogs from the 90’s.
The OS that you are calling GNU/Linux is usually less than 2% GNU these days as the GNU Project is only responsible for about a hundred packages. Most Linux distros have between 3,000 and 80,000 packages depending on the distribution.
In fact, if we are talking about software licenses, calling it MIT/Linux would be more appropriate. If we are talking about attribution, Red Hat contributes more code than anybody so perhaps Red Hat/Linux is more up-to-date. That may cause confusion with Red Hat Enterprise Linux though so perhaps IBM/Linux is the best term to use as IBM owns Red Hat these days and is therefore the top contributor to most Linux distros.
Of course, most people just call it Linux because everything above is ridiculous ( including GNU / Linux ).
All that said, teaching people about the FSF, copyleft, and Free Software more generally is super important. The GNU Project itself is more of a historical artifact at this point ( in my view ) but there is no denying its extreme historical importance. It would be great if people knew more about it. Much like BSD.
Teaching people to say GNU / Linux is not only not important but is downright political and factually incorrect. Not a fan.
Two things. Linux certainly does have a difficult learning curve, at least compared to Windows and OSX. I’m currently in Fedora 39 and I had to dig up some terminal commands off the internet just so I wasn’t choosing between 100% and 200% scaling. That’s just beyond the average computer user.
Secondly, I wish people could stop trying to teach everyone that Linux isn’t the OS. Anyone that cares already knows, and anyone that doesn’t know doesn’t care.
Ironically, the people who need to hear this don’t care.
It’s 100% stallman trying to coat-tails Linus.
What I’ve learned in 30 years of using Linux is the gnu/Linux distinction only matters to the kind of whacko I can’t work with. It’s a great mineshaft canary to let me know whom not to invest any time in.
Linus wrote a kernel, and GNU wrote the majority of the userspace at the time.
How is that coat-tails-ing? Both projects had a tremendous amount of effort poured into them. And let’s not forget GCC was the only free compiler for 20 years.
If people were asking for it to be called “GNU” only, then it’d be unfair. But they aren’t.
I wish people could stop trying to teach everyone that Big Ben isn’t the name of the clock. Nobody cares.
I wish people would stop trying to explain the difference between “to” and “too”, it really doesn’t matter.
Nock it off, people. If misconceptions are common, that means they’re right.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that common misconceptions somehow become correct, just that having that discussion with someone who doesn’t care is pointless. Also, pedantic discussions like that are something that might turn people off from trying out Linux
Noob here. What do you mean Linux isn’t the OS?
THANK YOU FOR ASKING, NO IT’S NOT.
I know the name ‘Linux’ is used to identify a family of OSs, but in reality it is actually only the kernel (the part of the system that allows hardware and software to communicate)
Would this be what people are getting at when they say “Gnu/Linux”? Or is it closer to saying “Linux Mint” or something?
Linux Mint would be an OS built on the Linux Kernel.
Some people have a hang-up on calling any Linux kernel based OS “Linux”, because unlike its competitor, there is a lot of OS flavors.
You have “main” OSes (Debian, Fedora, etc.) and derivative OSes based on these “main” OSes.
Linux Mint for example, is based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian.
At this point, it is semantics.
This is exactly what people mean when they say GNU/Linux. They are trying to say that it is “the GNU Operating Syatem” with the Linux kernel.
This nonesense though. Please ignore them.
Linux Mint is an operating system. It uses the Linux kernel. The fact that it includes a handful of GNU packages in no way justifies co-opting the branding. Linux Mint includes A LOT of software from many sources. Are you going to try to list them all in the name?
Actually, Linux is just the kernel, not the whole OS. The full operating system is called GNU/Linux because it combines the Linux kernel with GNU tools. Teaching people about GNU and why it was made is important. It’s not just about using software but understanding the freedoms behind it – the freedom to use, study, modify, and share. Free Software is about more than just open-source, it’s about user freedom, and that’s a crucial distinction. Now, I’m not forcing you to say GNU/Linux, I say Linux most of the time myself, but you should still teach people about GNU.
It’s far from just GNU utils, though.
Should we say “I don’t use Linux, I use GNU+Linux+systemd+pulseaudio+Wayland+Gnome+[etc]”
Actually that is a common misconception by people who have read political blogs from the 90’s.
The OS that you are calling GNU/Linux is usually less than 2% GNU these days as the GNU Project is only responsible for about a hundred packages. Most Linux distros have between 3,000 and 80,000 packages depending on the distribution.
In fact, if we are talking about software licenses, calling it MIT/Linux would be more appropriate. If we are talking about attribution, Red Hat contributes more code than anybody so perhaps Red Hat/Linux is more up-to-date. That may cause confusion with Red Hat Enterprise Linux though so perhaps IBM/Linux is the best term to use as IBM owns Red Hat these days and is therefore the top contributor to most Linux distros.
Of course, most people just call it Linux because everything above is ridiculous ( including GNU / Linux ).
All that said, teaching people about the FSF, copyleft, and Free Software more generally is super important. The GNU Project itself is more of a historical artifact at this point ( in my view ) but there is no denying its extreme historical importance. It would be great if people knew more about it. Much like BSD.
Teaching people to say GNU / Linux is not only not important but is downright political and factually incorrect. Not a fan.