Linux vs. GNU/Linux

I tend to use Linux, Ubuntu, or Gnome in general spoken conversation when referring to what I use.
When I want to be more specific in technical conversations I'll use 'GNU/Linux', or 'the Linux kernel'.

>>60815988

Really it is GNU and you should realize that Linux is such a shit name for the operating system that was made by people like Stallman at MIT for the purpose of not cucking the living fuck out of average people who use a computer

I'm talking about all those 35 year old utilities. That's what makes it Gnu.

Linux irl.
GNU+Linux on /g/ to avoid triggering the copypaste.

>>60815988
Just say GNU. Modern operating systems are not named by their kernel.
Would you say Android/Linux? No, you'd say android.
Would you say Sailfish/Linux? No, you'd say Sailfish.
Do you say XNU or Mac/XNU? You probably say Mac or MacOS.
Do you say NT or Windows/NT? You probably say Windows.
So obviously it's neither GNU/Linux nor Linux, it's just GNU.

File: 1985.jpg (56KB, 584x576px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 584x576px

>>60816061

>When I want to be more specific in technical conversations I'll use 'GNU/Linux', or 'the Linux kernel'.

ONLY TEMPLE OS CAN SAVE YOU.

It's Linux.
Only autists say otherwise.

the problem is all the distros. If it was one OS, then sure I would call out GNU. But ubuntu, fedora, arch, gentoo, etc. are so different from the original GNU OS when torvalds first worked on the kernel, that it's literally pointless to call it GNU/Linux.

If you want to get autistic then call it ubuntu/Linux, fedora/Linux, etc. That's where we are at. It's not about disrespecting RMS. It's that the operating system is the distro, not GNU.

File: 1466799123560.jpg (68KB, 461x588px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 461x588px

I say Linux when I'm referring to the kernel and GNU/Linux when I'm referring to the fully featured OS. (Usually I'll just call it by whatever distro is being used.)

I work in kernel development, so the distinction is meaningful.

>>60823504
>I say Linux when I'm referring to the kernel and GNU/Linux when I'm referring to the fully featured OS

Same here.

Neither, most of the time.
When people talk about what system they use, most of the time they don't mean to refer to what operating system they use. They really should be more specific, but Windows etc. has mixed the idea of "OS" as one big intermingled thing instead of a collection of different programs.
For example, a question such as "How do I change my screen resolution on Linux?" really has nothing to do with the kernel. Eventually the kernel will be used to change the display settings, but it's not important for the answer.
Let's assume the asker is using X11, but even "How do I change my screen resolution on X11?" would probably be the wrong thing to ask, too (unless they wanted to know what command-line program to throw into a terminal, in which case they should specify that.) Chances are that the asker is using GNOME or KDE or some other desktop environment, so the question ultimately should be "How do I change my screen resolution in KDE/GNOME/whatever DE?"
The reason for that is two-fold: the answerer doesn't need to ask for more information or assume what programs are on the machine, and the answer is more helpful to a broader range of situations (i.e. changing settings on KDE while using the kernel Linux isn't much different on KDE while using some BSD kernel.)
It's also just plain more accurate.

>>60823057
>not ubuntu/GNU, fedora/GNU, etc.