Our Operating System Needs A Name

[Mark76]

Referring to it as just Linux disregards the large contribution made by GNU. Calling it GNU/Linux likewise downplays the contributions made by Mozilla, Sun, Novell, Red Hat and countless others.

The name ought to reflect the core values of the community. So, with that in mind, might I suggest

LibreOS?

Or, if that's too la-di-da, how about just Freedom OS?

*Dons fire-retardant suit* ):P

[Tibuda]

I really think Linux is fine. Referring to it as just LibreOS or FreedomOS disregards the large contribution made by everyone you cited. What about GNU/Mozilla/Sun/Novell/RedHat/Linux?

[the8thstar]

Given the number of distros out there with their own names, I think it's best to stick to the name 'Linux' for the moment. It speaks for itself.

[dspari1]

We should call it.... Linux. ):P

[Giant Speck]

Linux isn't an operating system.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Linux isn't an operating system.

sure, it's a kernel, but that doesn't keep it from being also a dessert topping.

[The Toxic Mite]

LibreOS sounds like a very good name.

I have no idea why people are disagreeing with it though, but hey! We're entitled to our opinion.

[pat23_2007]

Personally I like the name Linux, and will continue to call it Linux. I agree 100% with Linus when he stated:


Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous

[Kazade]

I personally think the term "Linux" is overused, especially in marketing. For example, if I go to a store and see a netbook, I feel that the tag next to it should not say "Linux OS" it should say "Xandros", or "Ubuntu". I mean you don't see PCs and Macs with "NT OS" or "Mach OS" so why is Ubuntu/Xandros/Moblin etc. different?

I also think the term Linux scares new users, there's a lot of stigma attached to it.

And the whole GNU/Linux debate, RMS needs to chill out, people don't skip the GNU part out of disrespect, just out of ease of pronunciation.

[baseface]

you guys think too damn much.

[gn2]

I think it should be called Fred.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I personally think the term "Linux" is overused, especially in marketing. For example, if I go to a store and see a netbook, I feel that the tag next to it should not say "Linux OS" it should say "Xandros", or "Ubuntu". I mean you don't see PCs and Macs with "NT OS" or "Mach OS" so why is Ubuntu/Xandros/Moblin etc. different?


most people buying computers have never even heard of linux. it's now still just a nice way of saying 'other'.

[fatality_uk]

I vote for BOB! BOB would be a great name for an OS :D

[Simian Man]

I personally think the term "Linux" is overused, especially in marketing. For example, if I go to a store and see a netbook, I feel that the tag next to it should not say "Linux OS" it should say "Xandros", or "Ubuntu". I mean you don't see PCs and Macs with "NT OS" or "Mach OS" so why is Ubuntu/Xandros/Moblin etc. different?
But "Linux" is the only way to build a brand. Distros come and go, and none have a majority of users, so using those are no good.


I also think the term Linux scares new users, there's a lot of stigma attached to it.
Changing the name won't help. It's like how they keep changing what we call "retarded people". The names don't fool anyone; if we want to promote Linux, we should fix the problems with the system, not come up with a new name.


And the whole GNU/Linux debate, RMS needs to chill out, people don't skip the GNU part out of disrespect, just out of ease of pronunciation.
Agreed.

Linux FTW!

[Mark76]

As a poster above said: Microsoft doesn't call its OS NT and Apple doesn't call its Mach (though I'm told XNU is the correct name for the Mac OS). We're the only OS that, as far as I know, is named after just one component (albeit a very important one).

But, yeah, RMS does need to chill. I don't see all the other contributors insisting on having their names added to the OS's title.

[hanzomon4]

Changing the name won't help. It's like how they keep changing what we call "retarded people". The names don't fool anyone;



That's so wrong.... but I Laughed Aloud

[Polygon]

no matter how much you debate here, its not gonna be changed. sowwy =(

[MaxIBoy]

How about we refer to distros by name? Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SuSE, etc. The whole argument in favor of using "GNU/Linux" is that it takes more than a kernel to make an OS. I can buy that, but if you're going to say that, then you might as well go all the way with it.

[The Toxic Mite]

How about we refer to distros by name? Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SuSE, etc. The whole argument in favor of using "GNU/Linux" is that it takes more than a kernel to make an OS. I can buy that, but if you're going to say that, then you might as well go all the way with it.

Agreed.

I have no idea why this has turned into such an argument, but I do wish it could stop. :|

[TheNosh]

I vote for BOB! BOB would be a great name for an OS :D

*cough* microsoft bob *cough*

[koleoptero]

you guys think too damn much.

+1 rotflmao

[The Toxic Mite]

*cough* microsoft bob *cough*
+1 for mentioning Micro$haft

[pricetech]

Let's change its name to an unpronounceable symbol.

[DeadSuperHero]

I think it's fine the way it is. That said, I think we all here need to realize that it's not just an operating system...it's an ecosystem. It's a living, breathing organism capable of change.

If I were to ever start my own system, I would name it Xoo, for eXtend the Operating Organism.

[hanzomon4]

I think it's fine the way it is. That said, I think we all here need to realize that it's not just an operating system...it's an ecosystem. It's a living, breathing organism capable of change.

If I were to ever start my own system, I would name it Xoo, for eXtend the Operating Organism.

You and P-diddy with your extended orga.... oh organism, my bad

[TheNosh]

+1 for mentioning Micro$haft
well i had to once bob was suggested

[TheNosh]

Let's change its name to an unpronounceable symbol.

and refer to it verbaly as "the OS formerly known as linux"?

[Giant Speck]

+1 for mentioning Micro$haft

Hurray for worn-out puns!

[pricetech]

and refer to it verbaly as "the OS formerly known as linux"?

Which would start the whole debate all over again.

Ultimately however we would simply refer to it as "The OS"

I like it !!!!!

[klange]

That's so wrong.... but I Laughed Aloud

Honestly, it isn't. The term "retarded" was taken from Latin to refer to things that are slow, and that should very appropriately include the processing time of a damaged human brain. It was never meant to be insulting.

I'm amazed so many people have mentioned the GNU controversy without stating an important point: Not all Linux distros have GNU tools - some have none at all (busybox), and even those that do could replace them with non-GNU versions (they're just hard to come by, so we use what works best).

[The Toxic Mite]

Which would start the whole debate all over again.

Ultimately however we would simply refer to it as "The OS"

I like it !!!!!

The OS?! It's not like it's going to be the ultimate operating system around. Besides, it's Linux, and Micro$haft ******* is a lot popular than Linux, so what's the big deal?

Reporting this thread to the moderators/administrators.

[Giant Speck]

Which would start the whole debate all over again.

Ultimately however we would simply refer to it as "The OS"

I like it !!!!!

That's like saying Windows = PC like all of those Apple ads try to make consumers think.


Reporting this thread to the moderators/administrators.

Why exactly?

[The Toxic Mite]

Why exactly?

Because I am concerned that this thread may become just a huge debate over flick all basically.

[baseface]

That's like saying Windows = PC like all of those Apple ads try to make consumers think.



Why exactly?

its a useless waste of space.

[bowens44]

Linux works for me.

[The Toxic Mite]

its a useless waste of space.

+1

[baseface]

does anyone here actually think that the name is going to change?

[TBOL3]

Hmmmm, okay, a new name...

well, we need an x at the end (do to tradition), and it's free, so what about freex? :lolflag:

Oh, you don't like it, well, maybe we could try something a little better sounding, something that can actually be pronounced, hmmm, oh, I have an idea, how about:

LINUX, wow, imagine that.

[The Toxic Mite]

hmmmm, okay, a new name...

Well, we need an x at the end (do to tradition), and it's free, so what about freex? :lolflag:

Oh, you don't like it, well, maybe we could try something a little better sounding, something that can actually be pronounced, hmmm, oh, i have an idea, how about:

Linux, wow, imagine that.

-1

[swoll1980]

LibreOS sounds like a very good name.

I have no idea why people are disagreeing with it though, but hey! We're entitled to our opinion.

Because Linux isn't an OS.

[The Toxic Mite]

Because Linux isn't an OS.

+1

Everybody thinks that Linux itself is just an operating system, but it's actually a kernel. Linux distributions are built on that kernel.

[Giant Speck]

Because Linux isn't an OS.

You're kind of late to the party. I said this on the very first page. :p

[baseface]

You're kind of late to the party. I said this on the very first page. :p

good job. you win 100 internets.

[Giant Speck]

good job. you win 100 internets.

Sweet. I'm going to invest them all in large corporate banks.

[starcannon]

I agree with just calling it "Linux"; most of us know that Linux is a kernel and not the entire OS, but "Linux" has become the generic term for the OS. I personally like to run "Ubuntu Linux", its what works for me. I know Gnu is a part of the whole deal, but to be brutally honest as far as marketing goes, I don't really think a big ugly bovine is exactly a great image. I do like Tux the Penguin though ;).

So heres to Gnu/Linux, heres to Linux, and 3 cheers to Ubuntu Linux. How ever you spell it, call it, it's my personal pick as the best of the bunch in the world of Operating System choices.

[The Toxic Mite]

i agree with just calling it "linux"; most of us know that linux is a kernel and not the entire os, but "linux" has become the generic term for the os. I personally like to run "ubuntu linux", its what works for me. I know gnu is a part of the whole deal, but to be brutally honest as far as marketing goes, i don't really think a big ugly bovine is exactly a great image. I do like tux the penguin though ;).

So heres to gnu/linux, heres to linux, and 3 cheers to ubuntu linux. How ever you spell it, call it, it's my personal pick as the best of the bunch in the world of operating system choices.

-1

[Saint Angeles]

i suggested earlier that we give it the name of a word that always gets attention, like a swear word. but i just had a better idea!.


SEXos


notice the "OS" part is in lower case. this will really get peoples' attention!

(if i'm not allowed to type the word "sex" i'm really sorry)

[JK3mp]

Wow, sounds like a pretty uproaring topic. Too much debate over something thats not going to change. But i guess imagination is good for a person, lol. Anywho, so what if Linux is just a kernel, actually if its just a kernel, than does our OS need a new name? or just are Kernel ? In that case which OS are we USING! OMG, Ubuntu Or linux? Well, ubuntu's just the packages and interface, but linux is just the kernel, wtf am i using, im using...a .... Ubuinux? idk. lol, just a fit a thoughts to throw in with everyone else, i completely disagree with changing the name! (but um.. *cough* Jk3mpOS *cough* would be nice....lol00000 ) .

[JK3mp]

Oh, and isn't there something called FreedomOS already??? I thought i've heard of that before...

[Giant Speck]

Oh, and isn't there something called FreedomOS already??? I thought i've heard of that before...

I think there is, but I would imagine it's a fairly obscure distro.

[Bios Element]

FreedomOS is already running about... http://tinyurl.com/pe97bm

[Century]

"I can't believe it's not UNIX" OS.

[Giant Speck]

"I can't believe it's not UNIX" OS.

Haha! I like that one!

[MaxIBoy]

To be honest, I think we can stick with "Linux." It's not the proper name, but then again, no one calls me by my full name in conversation.


Honestly, it isn't. The term "retarded" was taken from Latin to refer to things that are slow, and that should very appropriately include the processing time of a damaged human brain. It was never meant to be insulting.Agreed. It just means "slow" or "held back in some way." Ever heard of fire-retardant gel? Anyway, even "moron" was originally a medical term, before some idiot ("idiot" was always an insult, even in the Greek) decided it was an insult.


I'm amazed so many people have mentioned the GNU controversy without stating an important point: Not all Linux distros have GNU tools - some have none at all (busybox), and even those that do could replace them with non-GNU versions (they're just hard to come by, so we use what works best).Busybox is still FSF software. While it's not technically GNU, you could consider it "GNU lite."

[TBOL3]

-1

you are just 'so' enthusiastic. :lolflag:

Anyway, I like "I can't believe it's not Unix" OS, and I will probably call it that for about a week.

SEXos, nice, how about intercrOS.

[klange]

Busybox is still FSF software. While it's not technically GNU, you could consider it "GNU lite."
Not really: "GNU" software is software developed by GNU. BusyBox has no affiliation with GNU except that they use their license - like thousands of other open-source projects. Calling it "GNU lite" is very misleading.


+1 for "Linux" and "Linux OSes".

[bryonak]

When talking to FOSS using friends, I call it Ubuntu/Debian/Slackware because I usually refer to the particular distribution (we're using various).

When talking to non-computer literate people (i.e. my mother or sister), I call it Ubuntu, since this is what they see booting up. 'Linux' would just add unnecessary complexity.

I use 'Linux' mainly to contrast it with Windows/OSX, as in direct comparisons of design features.

In writing it depends on the context, but usually the term 'GNU/Linux' is appropriate... but we could as well leave that dead horse alone.
There are distributions that have almost no GNU components, there are those without a Linux kernel, both work fine but GNU+Linux is the successful mix (for a reason).

Stallman's request for calling it GNU/Linux comes from a time (early 90's) where 80% of a distro was GNU software and 2% Linux. Today the Linux part isn't bigger, but Firefox, OpenOffice, etc take much more space and reduce the GNU share (which is still quite huge, especially if you're using GNOME).

[Sublime Porte]

PC/OS, since the OS for Macs is Mac/OS, the OS for PC's should be called PC/OS. (note: there's already a distro using this name)

[Sublime Porte]

There are distributions that have almost no GNU componentsVery few. You do realise what the GNU components are, right? ie. when you run "ls" at the command line, you're using GNU components, same for most of the commonly used shell commands.


there are those without a Linux kernel, both work fine but GNU+Linux is the successful mix (for a reason).Distributions without a Linux kernel? Distributions of what? That's a bit of a strange statement to make. If they don't include the Linux kernel, then they're not Linux distributions.


Stallman's request for calling it GNU/Linux comes from a time (early 90's) where 80% of a distro was GNU software and 2% Linux. Today the Linux part isn't bigger, but Firefox, OpenOffice, etc take much more spaceWhilst it is true that today much more of the actual disk space taken up in most distros is not GNU software, the most important parts are. The basic utilities the OS uses are, and the C library is also GNU, which is central to most programs on the system, as well as the compiler that builds them. So it's not just about disk space.

Also some would argue that most of those programs you mentioned are not really part of the OS. There's plenty of distros that don't ship with them, and different distros ship with different browsers and office suites. If you uninstall firefox/openoffice or konqueror/koffice, then your system will work fine. If you uninstall the GNU stuff, your system is dead.

[samjh]

Referring to it as just Linux disregards the large contribution made by GNU. Calling it GNU/Linux likewise downplays the contributions made by Mozilla, Sun, Novell, Red Hat and countless others.

The name ought to reflect the core values of the community. So, with that in mind, might I suggest

Windows makes no reference to Microsoft's dominance. Mac OS makes no reference to Steven Jobs or Steve Wozniak, or even FreeBSD or Mach. In short, it's not necessary or even common to make references to "values" in a product name.

Linux is a kernel. It was created by Linus Torvalds, who has the right to name it whatever he pleases. He named it Linux. Distributions make up the complete operating system. They are free to name it whatever they want: Fedora Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Ubuntu Linux, etcetera.

IMHO, Richard Stallman and GNU sometimes like to stick their noses in things they really shouldn't, such as the naming of distros or even Linux at large. FOSS and Linux is bigger than GNU. We have much to thank GNU for, but giving credit does not mean belittling the work of others or foot-worshipping them. The adoption of GNU software by the FOSS community was a convenience, not a necessity, so the "you wouldn't be where you are without us" argument is ridiculous. Linux's adoption of GNU saved GNU, not the other way around. GNU was a failed project before Linux came along. One should note that BSD got along just fine without GNU -- they had their own compiler and their own set of system utilities.

[etnlIcarus]

The name ought to reflect the core values of the community.

Something... like...


http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6083/screenshot3b.png
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu


Crazy thought, I know.

[sarah.fauzia]

Well, "Ubuntu" reflects the core values to the Ubuntu distribution, or "Arch Linux" reflects the core values to its distribution with the "Arch Way", the KISS principle, and beautiful minimalism. Each distribution, like someone mentioned on the first page, should be addressed by its name, but with "Linux" at the end so ignorant people can know the name is for an operating system (I've learned from experience that just saying "Ubuntu" doesn't cut it, except for the Linux literate). I think the name "Linux" much like "netbook" has become too cemented in public knowledge for it to be changed, though I do acknowledge that the very mention of "Linux" has the power to scare (ignorant) people.

[hanzomon4]

Honestly, it isn't. The term "retarded" was taken from Latin to refer to things that are slow, and that should very appropriately include the processing time of a damaged human brain. It was never meant to be insulting.



But..... it is

[glotz]

Ubuntu used to be called Ubuntu Linux but nowadays it's just Ubuntu which is better.

I use Debian GNU/Linux.

[abhilashm86]

maybe we should call it "people's OS"..............coz its user friendly and not propritery:)

[bryonak]

Very few. You do realise what the GNU components are, right? ie. when you run "ls" at the command line, you're using GNU components, same for most of the commonly used shell commands.

I'm perfectly aware of that, my point is that there are some, especially embedded systems (they usually replace lot's of the GNU userland with busybox or in-house solutions).
Categorising distributions is one of my hobbies (see my sig) ;)



Distributions without a Linux kernel? Distributions of what? That's a bit of a strange statement to make. If they don't include the Linux kernel, then they're not Linux distributions.

That's why I didn't say 'Linux distributions', but just 'distributions'. You can take it as 'software distributions'.
Why would you call Debian/Hurd, Debian/kFreeBSD, Gentoo/Alt or Nexenta a Linux distribution?



Whilst it is true that today much more of the actual disk space taken up in most distros is not GNU software, the most important parts are. The basic utilities the OS uses are, and the C library is also GNU, which is central to most programs on the system, as well as the compiler that builds them. So it's not just about disk space.

In embedded or ultralightweight use, GLibC often gets replaced by uClibc, dietlibc, newlib or klibc. OpenWRT (a firewall Linux distro) even has a lighter non-GNU version of ping!
Of course it's not about the disk space (I phrased that badly), but rather about the 'weight' of the contributions to the finished image. Which is, in the desktop area, where Mozilla/Firefox or Sun/OO.o come in pretty heavy today.



Also some would argue that most of those programs you mentioned are not really part of the OS. There's plenty of distros that don't ship with them, and different distros ship with different browsers and office suites. If you uninstall firefox/openoffice or konqueror/koffice, then your system will work fine. If you uninstall the GNU stuff, your system is dead.
The web browser has been considered part of a desktop OS for more than 10 years now. These were just examples, but I hope you get what I try to hint at: today there are many more contributors than in the olden days, where lots of the software came from the FSF. It's not less on an absolute scale, but on a relative.




IMHO, Richard Stallman and GNU sometimes like to stick their noses in things they really shouldn't, such as the naming of distros or even Linux at large. FOSS and Linux is bigger than GNU. We have much to thank GNU for, but giving credit does not mean belittling the work of others or foot-worshipping them. The adoption of GNU software by the FOSS community was a convenience, not a necessity, so the "you wouldn't be where you are without us" argument is ridiculous.

Hmm, you can put it aswell that "FOSS and GNU is bigger than Linux". Remember that GNU was at some point (for a decade or so) the major part of Free Software?



Linux's adoption of GNU saved GNU, not the other way around. GNU was a failed project before Linux came along. One should note that BSD got along just fine without GNU -- they had their own compiler and their own set of system utilities.
Harsh words :\
GNU would have simply used another kernel (there were a few around), which would have significantly slowed down it's mass adoption (maybe to the point to allow the BSDs to overtake)... but do you seriously think that the project would have suddenly given up after more than a decade of increasing popularity?
The BSDs are excellent systems which do fine in the server world indeed, but I guess the major reason for stalling adoption on the desktop is that they are very slow to experiment/adapt with new technology... and of course there was that certain lawsuit threat...