Can someone give me a rundown of what puts the GNU in GNU/Linux?

>>59120747
something something GIMP

File: 1487706230410.jpg (259KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1000x1500px

>>59120819
That's a pretty quick rundown, but I'm still confused. Can someone give me a quick rundown with some more information?

>>59120747
>I hear people talking about the GCC being a big constituent part of the OS, but MacOS and Microshit Windows don't even ship with compilers.
They actually do though. The C sharp compiler comes standard with the .NET framework which is preinstalled on modern versions of Windows. This just isn't common knowledge because the compiler directory isn't in the Windows PATH, so it's awkward to use without installing an IDE. And I'm not familiar with MacOS, however isn't LLVM Clang available as a standard official package? And don't a lot of Linux distros not come with GCC pre-installed these days? (It is of course trivial to install it using the package manager of course).

GNU does however provide the Bash shell and many of the utilities it depends on, GNU + Linux provides the absolute minimum usable operating system. Most systems of course use a DE which isn't part of the GNU project, but it is possible to use a computer with just a kernel and a shell. But with just the kernel, and no shell, there really isn't much a user can do with it.

>>59120747
autism.

linus himself said fsf is full of crazy retarded faggots incl. stallmeme.

File: currentstateofwindows.png (42KB, 600x344px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x344px

>>59121059
MacOS features the GCC as a downloadable package, iirc it compiles for the XCode IDE.

Also
>C#
>The current state of windows

>>59121214
I never said that Windows was GOOD, just that it does in fact come with a compiler,

>>59120747
GCC is pretty great. You could always just search for these things and find the answers without posting here.

>>59121214
Yes, XCode uses GCC. This is why I laugh at the Macfags that shit on GNU.

>>59120747
GNU is the operating system, which starded in the 80s. In the 90s a second vital contribution "Linux", the kernel was added, so GNU became GNU/Linux.

>>59121077

Mail me at "[email protected]" if you have any questions.

Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you
need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may
be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used
with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools
aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info.

http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01

>>59120747
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html#tools

>>59120747
GNU tools make up a significant portion of the utilities fleshing out the basic Linux system into a fully-fledged operating system.

>>59121059
>because the compiler directory isn't in the Windows PATH, so it's awkward to use without installing an IDE.
I know it's not really relevant to the entirety of the post but you know you can just... add it to your PATH, right? I mean shit, in many cases it feels even easier to do than *nix, since you can set it globally and permanently from a single place.

It seems like there's a lot of people around here who are decently good with a *nix environment but for some reason they just shut down with NT because it doesn't behave in exactly the same way, and act like it can't do anything at all.

>>59123295
GNU system*

>>59120747
SWALLOW THE BOG PILL

File: linusfinger.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

Sigh. It's not that so many people ask about some GPL programs being included in the Linux operating system, it's that so many get it wrong.

if Stallman is so butthurt about gnu/linux why didn't he add a clause un the GPL that forces anything using even a single line of GNU code to include "GNU" in the official name?

>>59123295
It's two things. Most Linux systems come with a package manager, and will set up the PATH for you, when Windows doesn't have that as a standard feature. And on top of that, Windows advertises itself as "user friendly" so people using Windows think they shouldn't even be expected to know what PATH is.

GNU comprises most small OS utilities that you use directly and many more complex programs use under the hood. Such as:

man      
cd
mkdir   
rmdir    
rm       
ls
mv       
cp
chmod 
cat
strings
find    
mount    
df -h
ps -A
killall
ss -at
cat
dd
grep
find
iconv
ip
locate
less
lsblk
od
pv
sed
seq
ss
tar
which
wipefs

You can, however, have a Linux-based system without even a trace of GNU. Busybox for example is an almost complete set of lightweight replacements of all of the above utilities. You'll usually find it installed on Linux-based routers.

>>59120747
you don't need a compiler when all of your software is nonfree

>>59123223
>>59123242
>>59123295
that seems like a bit of a stretch to call it a major part of linux if it's just the tools. a program isn't GNU+foo just because it uses glibc or whatever. can't you make a linux OS with other tools like clang etc? anyway, it's just a matter of which words you choose to describe it, if you call it linux or GNU+linux it doesn't really matter