And hardware can’t talk to it. Has it ever occurred to you that there’s more at stake here? That companies feel the need to lock away hardware in order to drive their profit line.
At least GNU has something interesting to say about computer science. And for what it’s worth, it’s telling to know that you woild rather disparage GNU rather than the purposeful decisions made by executives and manufactuers to render both hardware and software undocumented and subjugating.
But no! That’s “unfixable” and we need to learn how to “deal with it.” God forbid anyone makes a ruckus about it. Freedom for me but not for thee in this fast paced economy.
You picked the status quo and are now complaining that people reject the status quo.
I feel like you misunderstood. Operating system has many functions, one of the most important ones is talking to hardware. GNU cannot do that because that’s the kernel’s job. And the kernel is Linux. So they claim they’re an operating system but can’t do the most fundamental thing an operating system needs to do.
no. gnu does have a kernel. But it’s not linux. it’s called gnu hurd. It is actually about a year older than linux. It isn’t finished, and barely anyone uses it
I don’t use “google search” because it is nonfree software; linux was not started by the GNU project members. However, GNU does have a linux, it’s called Linux-libre.
GNU is the operating system in its entirety. GNU/Linux is the name used to best describe the exact operating system by giving principal credit to the Linux foundation. The GNU part is to highlight the fact that it is a libre operating system first and foremost.
Perhaps I need to reread the essays again, but the main takeaway is that what’s at stake here isn’t credit but the political legacy of software freedom. Something that is made obvious by your last remark.
The shortest proper name is GNU.
Inb4 Alpine, which is just called “Linux” internally.
People use terrible words in CS and engineering in general. Doesn’t mean we don’t challenge them.
I mean, GNU wants to be called an operating system but it can’t talk to hardware.
And hardware can’t talk to it. Has it ever occurred to you that there’s more at stake here? That companies feel the need to lock away hardware in order to drive their profit line.
At least GNU has something interesting to say about computer science. And for what it’s worth, it’s telling to know that you woild rather disparage GNU rather than the purposeful decisions made by executives and manufactuers to render both hardware and software undocumented and subjugating.
But no! That’s “unfixable” and we need to learn how to “deal with it.” God forbid anyone makes a ruckus about it. Freedom for me but not for thee in this fast paced economy.
You picked the status quo and are now complaining that people reject the status quo.
I feel like you misunderstood. Operating system has many functions, one of the most important ones is talking to hardware. GNU cannot do that because that’s the kernel’s job. And the kernel is Linux. So they claim they’re an operating system but can’t do the most fundamental thing an operating system needs to do.
What? GNU has a kernel, it’s called Linux!
no. gnu does have a kernel. But it’s not linux. it’s called gnu hurd. It is actually about a year older than linux. It isn’t finished, and barely anyone uses it
GNU has both Hurd and Linux, very powerful indeed!
just, no. linux is simply not a gnu project. at all.
If it were, we wouldn’t be hearing about them wanting to call it gnu/linux because, in their own words, the os is “gnu with linux added”
they’d just want to call it gnu.
a very quick google search could have told you that
I don’t use “google search” because it is nonfree software; linux was not started by the GNU project members. However, GNU does have a linux, it’s called Linux-libre.
GNU is the operating system in its entirety. GNU/Linux is the name used to best describe the exact operating system by giving principal credit to the Linux foundation. The GNU part is to highlight the fact that it is a libre operating system first and foremost.
Perhaps I need to reread the essays again, but the main takeaway is that what’s at stake here isn’t credit but the political legacy of software freedom. Something that is made obvious by your last remark.