Some come to me and say, “but dude, we should give recognition to the kernel and say GNU/Linux”, and I tell them I don’t care about the kernel, am not saying GNU/Linux every time, it’s way too long and doesn’t roll off the tongue. Plus “Linux” sounds nerdy af, like, “blip bop kernel source code 00101000 10100100”, while GNU’s all about freedom, what really matters, being all like “am not your proprietary crap” repeated ad infinitum through the recursive acronym that is GNU, that’s proper big brain stuff right there rather than technical gibberish about a kernel.
This one paragraph abode is very tongue in cheek of course, but I still mean it though.
I’ve spent a few years arguing for GNU/Linux or even just GNU on reddit, mostly in r/linuxmasterrace, and I was pleased to get quite a few upvotes every now and then, in a place where you can find people that will say things like “I make a point of never saying GNU/Linux, it’s called Linuuux!!!111!”
Here’s some comments I still can hardly believe got upvoted :
68 points! - https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/d01jb1/richard_stallman_is_giving_a_talk_at_microsoft/ez5tv3t/
35 points! - https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/5vivqm/stallman_id_just_like_to_interject_for_a_moment/de2k344/
13 points! - https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/iyds65/no_richard_its_linux_not_gnulinux/g6enrjc/
14 points! (this copypasta works well it seems) - https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/jh0tb9/the_real_os_king/g9vra1r/
14 points! - https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/bu2yh8/i_use_gnu_btw/ep7hy91/
And many more but with less upvotes or less interesting.
How? … Just How could you see the word Linux and think of corporate? Linux more often than anything is related to community, forums, open standards, chat forums like telegram/discord/element. Heck, even Lemmy is full of tech posts,Linux included in many of them. And NEVER have I see on the internet someone referring to Linux as “GNU for short around people that know about it.” that more than ridiculous. Even the pedantic elitist that insist on the name GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux don’t go that far.
copypasta time
spoiler
Calling it by the name of the original project or by the name of the kernel has implications.
Linux, the kernel, as the name of the whole system, is a pro corporate term that says our system is defined by running a particular kernel and it was started in 1991 by a CS student for fun.
GNU, the original name of the project to create a full libre system for PC, that is, a system assembled from numerous libre software that respect’s the user’s freedom by giving him absolute control over his hardware, say that our system was started in 1984 by people who thought you, I and everybody else deserved to be able to use their computers on their own terms rather having to comply with the conditions of something like microsoft.
Also by calling it Linux you refer to all system running the Linux kernel. Is that what we are about? I don’t know about you but stuff like android and chromeos, that does not interest me.
By calling it GNU you refer to all libre systems in general. So our distros, and stuff like debian/kfreeBSD and the BSD distros -just like what people mean when they say “install linux” in general for instance-, unless you specifically want to exclude those distros then GNU/Linux makes sens.
A kernel really isn’t a good way to define our libre system. It’s assembled from numerous libre software projects to make a full system that respect our freedom, that’s what defines our system, GNU.
Businesses only use the terms “linux” and “open source”, so they have much more exposition, but there’s no point in using those terms unless you have the same agenda as businesses like microsoft who says it loves “linux” and “open source”. Libre software and GNU are the original, freedom referring, on point, and shorter terms.
An example on the top of my mind is people saying “linux all the things!”, they really mean “free everything!”.
Open source also introduces a confusion with people thinking it’s all about being able to read the source code. The open source definition is clear on that, modifications and sharing the modified versions must be allowed. It’s pretty much the same things as the 4 freedoms of the Libre software definition, it really is just a corporate friendly rebranding of Libre software.
If a kernel is what defines our system, does windows becomes one of our beloved distros if microsoft decide to make Linux their kernel with all the rest basically the same? That kinda is what chromeos is with google instead of microsoft, which isn’t far from macos, and that’s surely not what we are about here.
Words control ideas, ideas control people.
spoiler
The war is ideological and it started by creating and popularizing words, really newspeak, to allow corps that leverage proprietary software to talk about libre software without having a stroke. Words control ideas, ideas control people.
People can only believe that microsoft loves “”““linux””“” if they don’t know what “”““linux””“” is because obfuscated behind a purely technical term, instead of the original, ideologically charged term, GNU.
Same thing for open source. The definition is basically the same as libre software, but it’s a new term. Why? To avoid saying free as in freedom and replace it by “source” and “openness” … It even introduced a new ambuigity, now a lot of people believe that “open source” means that it’s just about the code source being available …
By replacing the original, ideologically charged lingo, by corporate newspeak, they paved the way for revisionism :
https://youtu.be/fJA9eiUktcA
Listen to that, a despicable piece of propaganda meant to put into the heads of people who never heard of GNU nor even linux before, a little and simple bullshit narrative that completely bury the true origins, the true story of libre software, and its original goals.
I don’t know about y’all, but my system wasn’t started in 1991 by a cs student for fun, and it’s not about being free of charge and surely not either about running a specific kernel, my system was started in 1984 by people who thought I and everybody else deserved freedom, deserved to control the hardware we bought.
So I don’t mention the kernel personally if am somewhere where I know people will understand me by referring to the system by only “GNU”, like here. I don’t care about running a specific kernel, I care about my system obeying me, I care about freedom.
Those arguments didn’t hold the first time, why do you think copy n paste will argue it better a second time? Those arguments are full of unsupported opinions. It states Linux is a corporate term but that’s a half truth. Linux is a term use by both corporations and the community.
No. Depending on the context it may refer to the kernel or to the Linux distros. The same way we may be talking about America the continents or America as the country. Anyone that insist Linux is just the Kernel will be right in your argument but ultimately will be wrong because the premise is wrong.
It’s an excellent pasta. Everything holds.
One day Debian will finally quietly supply HURD as the default kernel and the pasta will still hold.
By saying Linux is a corporate term I don’t mean that it’s only that, that it started as a coporate term, but just that it is the term preferred by corporations to refer to the system in general. It’s useful to them as a way to refer to the system without mentioning anything else than a component that is not a project done for the sake of freedom, that doesn’t imply freedom for the sake of it, a component that just happens to embrace the ideology without representing it, like GNU does.
Obviously, that’s kicking an open door. Am talking about Linux as a slang to talk about all GNU/Linux distros. It’s as correct as GNU or GNU/Linux is, meaning, both GNU and Linux, by themselves, when used to refer to the whole systems in general, neither of them is factually correct, they are both a vulgar nickname, nobody has lawful power to decide on which one is the correct like for the Linux kernel for instance, or any other copyrighted piece of software.
Unless you want to, as I said in the passage you are quoting, refer to all system that sport a Linux kernel. Linux systems makes sens, GNU/Linux systems doesn’t because, as you would be prompt to point out, not all systems using the Linux kernel use GNU software. Linux distros the same way refer to all distros running this kernel. From there if I continue to type am goingto repeat again stuff from the copypastas linked in the previous comment or other comments linked in the original post.
and by the rest of the world.
Who is them? Canonical refer to its own product as Ubuntu. By the name of the distro and is the same with every company that produces a distro.
The Linux Kernel and/or the many distros out there does not represents freedom? Really? If anything the Linux kernel is the poster boy for FLOSS.
No I wasn’t, I wasn’t even thinking about it. Maybe when it became more relevant to our conversation.
I see that we agree on some things and I understand the worry about corporations spins on things for their benefits. But I don’t see anything but a unsupported opinion about it, an anti-corporations bias making you believe GNU needs its due recognition and at this point, trying to force the notion Linux should be called GNU/Linux. Except that’s not how language evolves. Linux as an OS is not slang, because it means:
As Linux IS written in formal writing and is not informal in any way except by the GNU/Linux advocates.
That’s substantially due to the exposure that the world get from all corporate media. Being adequate to the ideology of the powers that be surely helps being much more renowned.
I really don’t understand, that’s again kicking a door that’s wide open. Do you imagine that I say GNU fedora in lieu of just Fedora every time for instance? I really don’t understand.
The many distros, yes, of course, the Linux kernel, not by itself, no. Again everybody already uses it, big corps like google have put it in the majority of smartphones and tablet for instance. Google enjoys the freedom provided by this kernel project, but in the end the systems shipped are not giving the same freedom to the end users, because Linux is just a project to make a kernel, that happens to be GPLed, and would be worthless to us, GNU/Linux users, if it wasn’t GPLed. The Linux kernel really helped open source get renown, but not really software freedom.
And no, really, I don’t think a specific piece of software, created for fun by a CS student, that is already wide popular yet doesn’t necessarily bring freedom to end users in the end because it’s not its goal as its goal is just a being a piece of a system, not an entire OS for a personal computer, is as representative of freedom for the sake of it as the system that basically starting the work on our beloved distros simply because they thought you, I and everybody else deserved to be free to use their computers on their own terms, and that created the license that protects libre software from being privatised by big corps that the previously mentioned adopted or else it wouldn’t even be in this discussion.
The Linux kernel is an ambassador for open source, the corporate clean version, the one that has microsoft state that it “loves Linux”. Tell me, does Microsoft really love freedom, if “Linux” really is THE flag carrier of freedom in the computing world then? Again, corporate can say it loves linux without exploding under the weight of large contradictions because it’s just a standard more for them, like html is for instance, not an actual symbol for a paradigm shift that would imply libre software being the rule and proprietary software the exception, for a whole ideology of computing freedom for the sake of it, like GNU is.
For microsoft, a kernel like Linux is not a threat of any kind really, it’s in your microwave, your router, your phone, but does it translate to software freedom down the line for you the user? absolutely not, because it’s not a system. But GNU is a system, a system that aspire to give everybody, end users foremost, freedom. That’s completely incompatible with microsoft, that would mean replacing windows as well as the proprietary software ideology as the ruling one in the computing world.
Am not, Linux really is just a kernel and nothing more. People already often use the GNU/Linux denomination by the way, although you won’t see it promoted in anything produced by big corp. Hell, when saying just GNU on reddit people have never budged or said anything, if it’s around a crowed that know about the GNU/Linux denomination they understand it and don’t have a problem with it. So, as said again to the many people that argued and that didn’t want to hear about it, you do you. Personally I really don’t mind at all typing 4 extra characters to give exposure, that the media won’t give btw, to the software project that started to work on our beloved libre systems for personal computers and that did so much pioneering for our computing freedom, specially when the freedom really is what I care about in those systems, and corporate, that don’t wan’t any of it, won’t talk about any of it; while I don’t really care if it runs this or that kernel, like Linux, that I and so many others run anyway through very much not freedom respecting smartphones.
semantics, english is not my first language, I didn’t knew the right word, looked for translation, came up with stuff like “nickname” and “slang”, I think you understood what I meant.
👍