GNU/Linux - The Naming

**Ek0nomik** · March 24th, 2007

I just watched Revolution OS, and they interviewed Stallman and Torvalds. Stallman continuously called the combination of the two as GNU/Linux. While Torvalds seemed to call it Linux by itself. When they asked Torvalds whether or not he thought people should call it GNU/Linux, he said definitely not. It should only be called Linux.

Doesn't it make sense to be called GNU/Linux, as Linux is only a part of the OS.\? The other programs out of the OS were formed from the GNU project.

**saracen** · March 24th, 2007

How about X-Windows? Would you then want to call it GNU/X/Linux? And what about Gnome or KDE or countless other components that form the core of many Linux distributions? You can't include all the names of components that form part of each distribution, so where do you draw the line? Plus GNU/Linux doesn't sound catchy

**troymcdavis** · March 24th, 2007

Originally Posted by saracen

ou can't include all the names of components that form part of each distribution, so where do you draw the line?

So then wouldn't it make sense to refer to it by distro?

Actually, I think it depends on the context. If someone asks you what operating system you use, "Linux" should be a sufficient response. If someone asks you who made most of the programs you use, well, then "GNU" would be more accurate. If minimizing a window causes it to catch on fire and someone says, "How did you do that?" then the appropriate response would be "Beryl". To say I'm a "Linux user" is not inaccurate at all. But again, if we're going by Stallman's theory, I should be required to say that I'm a "Firefox/apt/KDE/X/GNU/Linux" user. I think in this case, Kubuntu would suffice.

**mostwanted** · March 24th, 2007

It's a question of branding not political correctness.

**y-lee** · March 24th, 2007

I call it Linux when I am lazy or talking to ppl who don't know what GNU means, otherwise i call it GNU/Linux because i wish to stress the gnu part of it all. Linux is really just the kernel as far as I know. Since i use Ubuntu exclusively I will usually say Ubuntu Gnu/Linux, and as to the KDE vs Gnome I use bot h and applications from both. Ubuntu has no problem with that so it matters not.

**Mathiasdm** · March 24th, 2007

Originally Posted by Ek0nomik

I just watched Revolution OS, and they interviewed Stallman and Torvalds. Stallman continuously called the combination of the two as GNU/Linux. While Torvalds seemed to call it Linux by itself. When they asked Torvalds whether or not he thought people should call it GNU/Linux, he said definitely not. It should only be called Linux.

Doesn't it make sense to be called GNU/Linux, as Linux is only a part of the OS.\? The other programs out of the OS were formed from the GNU project.

It depends. I've noticed that the people who are really against closed source software, seem to call it GNU/Linux all the time, while others stick with Linux.

Personally, I'm going with 'Linux'.

**DoctorMO** · March 24th, 2007

apparently it's more to do with architectures, as a programmer if I'm going to build tool to run on the gnu stack it really doesn't matter if it's linux or solaris kernels or even bsd. on the other hand if I'm creating something to run on all posix machines (unix apart from SCO unix) then saying posix is good.

Stallmans point is that his work both legal and programming to create the frameworks and foundations for both free software and open software movements is being ignored and that he's not getting any credit for doing most of the leg work.

Linus on the other hand has concentrated on dong the right technical thing in the important but small part of the kernel space; but also wants recognition; why he doesn't like it being called gnu/linux is a bit odd because it suggests to me he's more unbalanced that he's been given credit for.

In the end I will say Ubuntu where I mean ubuntu because that _is_ what I mean most of the time. but as a generic term gnu/linux is more accurate for the system since neither gnu or linux can work without the other as an os, but can happily work with Xorg, Firefox, KDE etc.

**IYY** · March 24th, 2007

I think that the official name should always remain GNU/Linux. It describes what the operating system is (a set of GNU coreutils and software combined with the Linux kernel), and respects the history of the project. However, I believe that it's ok to occasionally refer to it as Linux in informal discussion. Usually, I think you should refer to the OS by the name of the distribution. "Ubuntu" describes the operating system we are all using, whereas "Linux" describes only the kernel, and "GNU/Linux" describes an huge array of operating systems of all shapes and sizes.

After all, Mac OS calls itself "Mac OS Tiger" or something like that, not "Darwin" or "FreeBSD". Windows XP doesn't call itself "NT" even though it uses the NT kernel.

Of course, the big question is "what is an operating system?". The answer is not well defined. It can mean a kernel (in which case we call it Linux), it can mean a kernel and a set of software (shells) that allows the user to interact with the kernel (in which case it's GNU/Linux), or it can mean an entire package, including some basic productivity software, a GUI and a look (in which case it's Ubuntu).

I call it Linux when I am lazy or talking to ppl who don't know what GNU means, otherwise i call it GNU/Linux because i wish to stress the gnu part of it all.

Funny, I try to do the opposite. The people who know what GNU means already understand that it's part of the operating system I call Linux or Ubuntu. The people who don't know the history should get the big picture, otherwise they end up thinking that Linux is a product or a company. This leads to huge misunderstandings like "Oh, I've seen Linux. It's like DOS" (a server distribution might very well look like DOS to the layman), or "Linux looks like Windows 95!" (a lightweight distribution running IceWM does look like Windows 95), or "Linux has the menu at the top of the screen!" (Gnome does, but KDE doesn't), or "Linux has all sorts of special effects like Vista!" (which is followed by disappointment as their installation of some distribution does not include Beryl out of the box). Don't spread confusion, spread knowledge!

**Lord Illidan** · March 24th, 2007

Originally Posted by IYY

I think that the official name should always remain GNU/Linux. It describes what the operating system is (a set of GNU coreutils and software combined with the Linux kernel), and respects the history of the project. However, I believe that it's ok to occasionally refer to it as Linux in informal discussion. Usually, I think you should refer to the OS by the name of the distribution. "Ubuntu" describes the operating system we are all using, whereas "Linux" describes only the kernel, and "GNU/Linux" describes an huge array of operating systems of all shapes and sizes.

After all, Mac OS calls itself "Mac OS Tiger" or something like that, not "Darwin" or "FreeBSD". Windows XP doesn't call itself "NT" even though it uses the NT kernel.

Of course, the big question is "what is an operating system?". The answer is not well defined. It can mean a kernel (in which case we call it Linux), it can mean a kernel and a set of software (shells) that allows the user to interact with the kernel (in which case it's GNU/Linux), or it can mean an entire package, including some basic productivity software, a GUI and a look (in which case it's Ubuntu).

Funny, I try to do the opposite. The people who know what GNU means already understand that it's part of the operating system I call Linux or Ubuntu. The people who don't know the history should get the big picture, otherwise they end up thinking that Linux is a product or a company. This leads to huge misunderstandings like "Oh, I've seen Linux. It's like DOS" (a server distribution might very well look like DOS to the layman), or "Linux looks like Windows 95!" (a lightweight distribution running IceWM does look like Windows 95), or "Linux has the menu at the top of the screen!" (Gnome does, but KDE doesn't), or "Linux has all sorts of special effects like Vista!" (which is followed by disappointment as their installation of some distribution does not include Beryl out of the box). Don't spread confusion, spread knowledge!

Then it is your job to correct them. Linux isn't GNOME or KDE or Beryl. It is just the kernel.

Personally while I respect Stallman, and GNU in general, I call it Linux. It is easier to type

**whitefort** · March 24th, 2007

'Linux' is certainly a lot catchier, but like some others here, what I call it depends on who I'm talking to.

I personally feel it's VERY important never to forget the GNU part. It's not just a matter of giving credit where credit is due (though that's certainly part of it). It's also a reminder of the underlying philosophy of free software that gave us this great operating system. It's a tribute to the battles that had to be fought (and are still being fought) against those who want to turn computers into mysterious black boxes full of 'secret' software - software that will impose all sorts of digital restrictions on what we can do with them.

Obviously, any Linux user is free to call it whatever they want, but I deeply feel that anyone who really cares about the OS ought to at least consider what Stallman has to say on the subject, even if they then reject his view.

You can find it at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html