So if Linux is the kernel and gnu is the corelibs and utilities,

GNU was around first and from the user's perspective an operating system is defined much more by its set of coreutils than whatever kernel it happens to be using.

>>60786283
No, Linux is the name, GNU is like the title, e.g. Dr. Linux -> GNU. Linux.
What you're suggesting is Linux Dr. -> Linux GNU.

>>60786304
But without Linux the coreutils would be useless.

...I'd just like to interject for a moment....

>>60786283
GNU only makes coreutils. That's such a minor and insignificant part.

RedHat makes systemd, GNOME, Wayland, GNOME apps, PulseAudio and pretty much everythign of value.

Linux should be called RedHat/Linux or RedHat+Linux.

GNU is fucking irrelevant.

>>60786327
And vice-versa.
The GNU coreutils can be used with any POSIX compliant kernel, including the BSDs, Windows' Linux subsystem, and GNU Hurd (for what it's worth).

Conversely, it's also possible to have Linux without GNU, see Alpine for an example, which uses busybox for coreutils and musl instead of GClib.

GNU/Linux is a perfectly adequate descriptor for the standard distribution. Otherwise we're stuck with nothing terms like 'Unix-like'

>>60786283
Nobody talks about ``NT Windows". The average user doesn't care about the kernel, it's the UI they care about.

>>60786283
I call it Linux because that's the part that matters to me. In the future I want my phone, server, fridge, toaster, car, router, vacuum cleaner, watch and laptop to all use Linux. Everything should use Linux. Not everything is using GNU though. I wouldn't buy something that doesn't use Linux if there are ones available that do use it. There are no restrictions that would prevent it from taking over the world, generating a one standard kernel that everything uses.

>>60786283
>>60786327
>>60786382
>neo /g/
All wrong. It's easy as fuck to replace the kernel and create another GNU based useful OS; you can see it in stuff such as FreeBSD.On the other hand you can't replace GNU with something else that results in a productive OS. GNU is more important than the kernel because it allows you to actually use your computer.

Android/Linux comes with minimum GNU.

>>60787134
>what is alpine/stali
Fuck off neo-gnu-shill-pajeet

>>60787134
>you can't replace GNU with something else that results in a productive OS.
Yes you can.

>>60786382
GNOME is a GNU project.

>>60788446
Almost all of the developers are paid by RH. FSF doesn't pay shit. They just hoard money and give it to their jewish directors as salary.

File: frank.jpg (37KB, 640x396px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x396px

>mfw GNU aspies try to make it seem like GNU is responsible for Linux
you don't even need glibc or the core utils anymore, see busybox and musl.
But yeah, keep talking about how important GNU is for bringing us all these amazing groundbreaking things like ls and mkdir and grep. it's not like like there are dozens of other implementations, including open source ones.

>>60788600
The same could be said for the Linux kernel.

Whether you think it was groundbreaking or not, GNU assembled a complete free operating system userland. This doesn't become worthless just because alternatives now exist.

>>60788446
Ah, that's why it's so shit

>>60786914
Oh, ok. Then we should just call it Red Hat.

I can't wait until stallman dies and the fsf goes away

>>60786304
coreutils are just basic C programs. Anybody that knows C and has see them before could make a copy that does 80% of what they do. They are less impressive than the linux kernel.

Doing gcc (and the whole suite of compilers) is more impressive. Maybe more than linux itself. Yet you can find OS without compilers that call themselves Operating systems (windows)

>>60786914
>Nobody talks about ``NT Windows".
maybe not today, but 15-20 years ago it was common to differentiate between NT based windows systems and DOS based windows systems

>>60788696
Can't be long, I mean just look at him.
>>60788651
the scale and capabilities of the Linux kernel put it in a completely different league than the small-fry shit the coreutils do.
The coreutils are 60,000 lines of code and kernel presently stands at 18 million.
The coreutils can be and have been re-implemented, but the kernel would take many many millions of dollars to replace.

Fuck, all my pictures of stallman looking disgusting are on my other computer.

>>60788725
It has a C# compiler though, it comes with .net, which is pre-installed since 7.

>>60786575
Alpine? Don't you mean busybox + Linux?

>>60788794
>The coreutils are 60,000 lines of code and kernel presently stands at 18 million.
being completely fair, the "core" of the kernel with just the functionality is aroun 150.000 lines. The rest are drivers

>>60788794
The total GNU contribution to the operating system is more than just the coreutils and is larger than the kernel if we're judging this purely by LOC. A POSIX compliant system requires a C compiler for starters.

Regardless of the kernel's complexity, the GNU userland can be moved to another kernel if one so desires. Linux was licenced under the GPL so that's the one they used.
You can have GNU without Linux and you can have Linux without GNU, but for the vast majority of distributions GNU/Linux is an accurate label.

>>60788872
> POSIX requires a C compiler
oh, so then I take back >>60788725

>>60786575
>abloo bloo
I run Linux with toybox, so my system is Linux/BSD. GANOO cucks get fucked.

>>60786283
Its not what about it 'impressive', its about what makes up a posix compliant OS

>>60788872
>but for the vast majority of distributions GNU/Linux is an accurate label.
actually no one is denying that outside of /g/, it's the "linux is not an OS but just a kernel" bullshit most people can't stand because it's plain wrong and retarded.

>

>>60788860
I considered including that caveat in my post but I decided not to because I don't think being driver code should exclude it. Driver support is a part of what makes a kernel useful and the fact that it's driver code doesn't diminish what a massive effort it is.

>C compiler
Alright, I'll let GNU have GCC as a feather in its cap. But Linux as an OS has grown way beyond the POSIX standard. Mainstream distros include huge amounts of code from Red Hat and X.org. If we're gonna call it GNU/Linux, why not call it GNU/systemd/Xorg/Linux?
>linux was licensed under the GPL so that's the one they used
wrong, they used linux because it was actually functional, unlike the abortive Hurd kernel. Read the old mailing lists from when Linux was young, most of the people using didn't give a shit about licensing, they were just happy to have a Unix implementation on the 386 without paying an arm and a leg.

>>60789048
Drivers don't necessarily have to be a part of the kernel, in fact it's generally regarded as a flaw with Linux and other monolithic kernels that they are so tightly coupled.

>GNU/systemd/Xorg/Linux
The OS may have grown larger than POSIX, but that doesn't mean the standard is worthless. It was never supposed to encompass the whole system since every user is going to be different, only the fundamental interfaces. I'm yet to see a better formal definition for what constitutes a basic, complete operating system. Obviously xorg is a joke, but I fear that we may one day see systemd/Linux.

>wrong, they used linux because it was actually functional, unlike the abortive Hurd kernel.
Linux would have not become the canonical GNU kernel had Linus not agreed to licence it under the GPL. They were working toward similar ends around the same time and we should be glad that they came together.

As a side note, Hurd does work these days, there's Debian Hurd. However, I suggest using a VM because lol no drivers.

>>60788794
GNU is way more than just coreutils.
https://www.gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html

>>60787834
Name something that can replace gnu. Go on.

>>60789171
Read that list. There are some gems in there like GCC, and a whole lot of shit nobody has ever used. Moreover, I think I covered it with >>60789048.
>>60789168
Kernel architecture aside, Linux is responsible for the achievement of reaching such broad hardware support. To my mind it doesn't really matter where the drivers live, because the point I was making was about the man hours that went into them. Even if they weren't as tightly coupled it would still be a huge codebase under the auspices of Linux.
>Linux would have not become the canonical GNU kernel had Linus not agreed to licence it under the GPL.
I think you're almost right. I really think any license with similar terms would have been conducive to this level of success. Really all that's essential is that anybody can change and distribute it but they have to publish their modified code and let the original project use it. The fact that it was GPL rather than another is somewhat immaterial. I think I heard Torvalds say something to that end at a Q/A session.

>>60789338
Alpine Linux with Clang.
*BSD with Clang.

>>60789338
BSD core utils implementation... OSX core utils implementation....