• laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still don’t get why a toolchain that can be replaced but never was able to make a stable kernel of its own after twenty years should get top billing in the name of the OS. A lot of that stuff was left in the dust, its relevance to the system grows smaller each year while the Linux kernel is the only reason they were ever able to make a complete OS in the first place.

    Hardly anyone uses GNU without Linux; way more people use Linux without GNU than with it.

    Plus, the community at large has decided long ago that the name is just Linux… Does it matter that that’s the name of the kernel? No. Windows and MacOS aren’t named after their kernels, or their toolchains, or any other component.

    Anyway, there wasn’t an OS until there was Linux to bring it all together.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Linus is the one who got a workable thing out in the public’s hands. He didn’t even want to name it Linux, but someone came up with that name and it stuck.

      The GNU project did a lot of great things, but ultimately they weren’t able to get a full-fledged operating system out that people could use, so they lost the opportunity to name it. It really shouldn’t matter to them though. GNU is well known, its philosophies are critical to how the free software and open source communities work, it was basically a massive success in the way almost no other volunteer non-commercial projects ever are.

      But tagging “GNU/” in front of Linux is dumb.

      • librechad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think tagging GNU in front of Linux is dumb, people wouldn’t care to figure out who they are and what its about if they didn’t do that. You have to give credit to both of them. I still would want GNU there, even if I don’t say it most of the time. I call it Linux mostly but sometimes I call it GNU plus Linux just to be accurate.

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even now with more eyes on GNU, Herd still isn’t a serious kernel. BSD has more users and support than GNU Herd.

      I thank the GNU community for making wonderful tools and making libre software possible, but it doesn’t exactly deserve top billing.

      Linux without GNU can live, with BusyBox or Android. GNU without Linux would have never taken off. Though I’m curious if in another timeline without GNU, Linux might not have taken off, as GNU had all the tools but no kernel.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well we have Linux as the kernel now, and with linux-libre and FreeBSD there’s no real need for another kernel. So no reason for anyone to invest in it. I do think Hurd is kind of interesting conceptually, and it’s at a point where you can actually run it now.

        And yeah, without GNU, I’m not convinced Linus would’ve bothered with Linux. GNU was off the ground long before Linux was production ready.

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Linus didn’t write Linux for GNU, though, he wrote it as a response to Minix which, if memory serves, was written by one of his professors and took a hard minimalist approach for teaching purposes and Linus wanted to make something actually practical.

          Hell, it had to be adapted to work with GNU (or GNU adapted to work with Linux, I don’t remember which) so, if GNU’s absence meant Linus didn’t write his kernel, it would have been a very indirect result