Some come to me and say, âbut dude, we should give recognition to the kernel and say GNU/Linuxâ, and I tell them I donât care about the kernel, am not saying GNU/Linux every time, itâs way too long and doesnât roll off the tongue. Plus âLinuxâ sounds nerdy af, like, âblip bop kernel source code 00101000 10100100â, while GNUâs all about freedom, what really matters, being all like âam not your proprietary crapâ repeated ad infinitum through the recursive acronym that is GNU, thatâs 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.
Iâve 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 âI make a point of never saying GNU/Linux, itâs called Linuuux!!!111!â
Hereâs 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word âLinuxâ in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by AlpĂĄr-Etele MĂŠder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
- 0 users online
- 5 users / day
- 22 users / week
- 59 users / month
- 239 users / 6 months
- 19 subscribers
- 1.76K Posts
- 5.43K Comments
- Modlog
I encourage you to use https://teddit.net or any other Teddit instance instead of Reddit links which, even with the old front-end, track users, run unknown code in usersâ web browsers and is still a resources black hole for modest computers.
Thanks! Didnât know this!
I just told my girlfriend, who knows nothing about the whole GNU/Linux debate about it and she said everyone could just call it GNUnix. I kind of like it
Pronounced âNew Nixâ?
The best name suggestion Iâve heard yet.
I do agree that the vast majority of distributions made for daily use uses the GNU Core Utils (hard to use most popular software without glibc).
But Iâd like to remember that there are more than a handful of Linux distributions we use everyday while forgetting they donât use GNU Software at all.
Take for example Android or distributions used in server/embedded systems like Alpine Linux. The kernel and the Unix-like environment is the core reason people remember them as Linux and not Bionic, BusyBox or musl.
You are still completely right when talking about casual desktop Linux, which the majority of discussions about âLinuxâ focuses on.
Damn, I want GNU Hurd to be s table soon so I could flex about my GNU system.
Perhaps we could create a c/GNU community?
I get reminded of that every time the conversation comes sup, itâs systematic, even when I preemptively mention it. I couldnât forget it even if I wanted to. I then remind people that GNU free of Linux virus(/s) also exists.
https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/dbfxn7/replying_to_a_comment_reading_linux_is_a_kernel/f227k04/
https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/o058hi/not_gnu/h1tpf29/
And by the way thatâs also why GNU makes more sens imo, because when people talk about âLinuxâ, saying something like âtry Linux!â, they obviously donât mean Android, everybody already runs Android, they donât mean any system running the linux kernel, like chromeos, or embedded system inside a microwave, because everybody already uses the linux kernel. Really what they mean is âtry libre systems that our GNU based distros areâ. Because if itâs not about freedom, then itâs about running a specific component, a specific kernel, and then our glorious free distros have nothing to claim to be superior to chromeos for instance(ignoring potential technical limitations for the sake of the argument, chromeos is just to be understood here as any proprietary system using the linux kernel). Disarmed of its ideological roots libre software becomes inoffensive for giant corps like google seeking control over their users, because they simply use the freedom to their advantage without giving it to their users. And thatâs when I always repeat :
Words control ideas, ideas control people (Heard from Michael Parenti)
Not going to happen unfortunately, itâs basically stopped, I think Iâve read somewhere that the last commit to hurdâs code was something like 3 years ago ⌠The FSF and GNU project donât consider it worth investing in when Linux-libre does the job.
That wonât stop me from flexing about my GNU system personally, and by that I mean, currently Fedora, but it could be any other distros(of course not including those that donât actually use GNU stuff like Android and Alpine). Everybody and his dog runs Linux, really what I run is GNU OS, it just happens to sport that Linux kernel because itâs the best GPLed kernel out there for the moment ⌠You know, thatâs the idea am pushing out there, thatâs routine speech sort of.
lemme copy paste here in spoiler a copypasta of my own I used a few times and had quite some success :
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 respectâs the userâs 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 donât 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 âinstall linuxâ in general for instance-, unless you specifically want to exclude those distros then GNU/Linux makes sens.
A kernel really isnât a good way to define our libre system. Itâs assembled from numerous libre software projects to make a full system that respect our freedom, thatâs what defines our system, GNU.
Businesses only use the terms âlinuxâ and âopen sourceâ, so they have much more exposition, but thereâs no point in using those terms unless you have the same agenda as businesses like microsoft who says it loves âlinuxâ and âopen sourceâ. 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 âlinux all the things!â, they really mean âfree everything!â.
Open source also introduces a confusion with people thinking itâs 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. Itâs 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 isnât far from macos, and thatâs surely not what we are about here.
Words control ideas, ideas control people.
Youâre absolutely right.
The development pace is very slow, and itâs true itâs a very low priority project for the FSF, but itâs not completelly dead yet. Last commit was ~28 hours ago. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git/log/
Yeah maybe, although I guess it will probably be abandoned while everything will be here on c/linux unfortunately.
imo c/linux should rather be called c/GNU/Linux or c/GNU+Linux in the first place, or even better, c/GNU :) And c/Linux would be the lesser one dedicated to kernel-enthusiast :D (I have my own share of fun with this theme I gotta admit, being tongue in cheek a lot, but I really mean it)
There is a c/gnu community already, but unlike c/linux, it is not a catch-all for any vaguely technology-related post.
I get why people say this, but at this point âLinuxâ has become so much more than either GNU or Linux proper, and even many people who are not knee deep in tech are familiar with âLinuxâ under that name. Itâs like arguing against using the name âKleenexâ for any facial tissue. Maybe itâs technically correct, but common usage left the station a couple decades ago.
GNU.org argue to add GNU/, making it GNU/Linux, this way you give recognition to the initial project, the freedom concerned project, while also using the âLinuxâ term for its recognition.
Lots of people have replied to me along my years around this conversation that GNU/Linux is just too long, so I say if itâs really too much to type GNU/Linux, might has well shorten it to just GNU. Thatâs what I chose to do personally, what I think makes more sens and is a better choice compared to shortenning to âLinuxâ for the name of the system in general imo âŚ
Unfortunately this is an uphill battle, even here people are just going to call the system âLinuxâ because of brand loyalty or just because thatâs what theyâre used to.
Keep in mind also, âLinuxâ is not strictly speaking incorrect as long as you keep in mind, it technically refers to just the kernel, or more broadly to the family of systems that use said kernel (the definition Wikipedia gives it, which is repeated in the sidebar here). GNU/Linux systems are a subset of Linux systems, but Linux systems also include Android and Alpine variants as well as things like OpenWRT and other embedded applications. Linux is a very versatile tool.
Just keep in mind, Linux is not an operating system or platform in and of itself, none of the userland libraries or applications are âpart of Linux,â you canât really make apps for it (nor should you really want to), you canât treat different Linux systems as interchangable (especially if one or both arenât GNU/Linux) and just because a particular Linux system isnât your preferred type of Linux system does not make it ânot real Linuxâ (looking at you !linuxphones@lemmy.ml )
The same way words can have different meanings like
Linux is both a Kernel and a Operating System offered in many variations called Distrubutions or âdistrosâ for short.
Some people like to also called it:
but thatâs too long so people just call it Linux.
How you shorten is up to you as GNU.org explains. As explained in my copypastas I see Linux, like âopen sourceâ, as a pro-corporate newspeak, so I either shorten it to GNU/Linux, because the name âLinuxâ is much more widely reknowned and recognized out there, or GNU for short around people that know about it.
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 âGNU for short around people that know about it.â that more than ridiculous. Even the pedantic elitist that insist on the name GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux donât 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 respectâs the userâs 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 donât 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 âinstall linuxâ in general for instance-, unless you specifically want to exclude those distros then GNU/Linux makes sens.
A kernel really isnât a good way to define our libre system. Itâs assembled from numerous libre software projects to make a full system that respect our freedom, thatâs what defines our system, GNU.
Businesses only use the terms âlinuxâ and âopen sourceâ, so they have much more exposition, but thereâs no point in using those terms unless you have the same agenda as businesses like microsoft who says it loves âlinuxâ and âopen sourceâ. 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 âlinux all the things!â, they really mean âfree everything!â.
Open source also introduces a confusion with people thinking itâs 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. Itâs 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 isnât far from macos, and thatâs 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.
â
People can only believe that microsoft loves ââââlinuxââââ if they donât know what ââââlinuxââââ is because obfuscated behind a purely technical term, instead of the original, ideologically charged term, GNU.
â
Same thing for open source. The definition is basically the same as libre software, but itâs a new term. Why? To avoid saying free as in freedom and replace it by âsourceâ and âopennessâ ⌠It even introduced a new ambuigity, now a lot of people believe that âopen sourceâ means that itâs just about the code source being available âŚ
â
By replacing the original, ideologically charged lingo, by corporate newspeak, they paved the way for revisionism :
â
https://youtu.be/fJA9eiUktcA
â
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.
â
I donât know about yâall, but my system wasnât started in 1991 by a cs student for fun, and itâs 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.
â
So I donât mention the kernel personally if am somewhere where I know people will understand me by referring to the system by only âGNUâ, like here. I donât care about running a specific kernel, I care about my system obeying me, I care about freedom.
Those arguments didnât 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 thatâs 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.
Itâs 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 donât mean that itâs 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. Itâs 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 doesnât imply freedom for the sake of it, a component that just happens to embrace the ideology without representing it, like GNU does.
Obviously, thatâs kicking an open door. Am talking about Linux as a slang to talk about all GNU/Linux distros. Itâs 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 doesnât 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 wasnât, I wasnât 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 donât 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 thatâs 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.
Thatâs 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 donât understand, thatâs again kicking a door thatâs wide open. Do you imagine that I say GNU fedora in lieu of just Fedora every time for instance? I really donât 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 wasnât GPLed. The Linux kernel really helped open source get renown, but not really software freedom.
And no, really, I donât think a specific piece of software, created for fun by a CS student, that is already wide popular yet doesnât necessarily bring freedom to end users in the end because itâs 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 wouldnât 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 âloves Linuxâ. Tell me, does Microsoft really love freedom, if âLinuxâ 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 itâs 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, itâs in your microwave, your router, your phone, but does it translate to software freedom down the line for you the user? absolutely not, because itâs not a system. But GNU is a system, a system that aspire to give everybody, end users foremost, freedom. Thatâs 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 wonât see it promoted in anything produced by big corp. Hell, when saying just GNU on reddit people have never budged or said anything, if itâs around a crowed that know about the GNU/Linux denomination they understand it and donât have a problem with it. So, as said again to the many people that argued and that didnât want to hear about it, you do you. Personally I really donât mind at all typing 4 extra characters to give exposure, that the media wonât 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 donât wanât any of it, wonât talk about any of it; while I donât 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 didnât knew the right word, looked for translation, came up with stuff like ânicknameâ and âslangâ, I think you understood what I meant.
đ
They should have named it better then because they way GNU is pronounced is awkward to say in conversation and doesnât convey the point like most other OS names do.
Logically sure it makes sense to call it a GNU system or even GNU/Linux but casually it really doesnât compared to Linux, especially when you take name recognition into account
The recursive acronym idea behind the name GNU is nice tho.
Itâs true that Linux has a nice ring to it, but GNU ainât that bad and it can be pronouced ânewâ or spelling the letters, or even âgannoooâ if you really want to x)
Linux has gain so much more recognition from being the only name ever used by big corps the media, because like open source ⌠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 respectâs the userâs 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 donât 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 âinstall linuxâ in general for instance-, unless you specifically want to exclude those distros then GNU/Linux makes sens.
A kernel really isnât a good way to define our libre system. Itâs assembled from numerous libre software projects to make a full system that respect our freedom, thatâs what defines our system, GNU.
Businesses only use the terms âlinuxâ and âopen sourceâ, so they have much more exposition, but thereâs no point in using those terms unless you have the same agenda as businesses like microsoft who says it loves âlinuxâ and âopen sourceâ. 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 âlinux all the things!â, they really mean âfree everything!â.
Open source also introduces a confusion with people thinking itâs 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. Itâs 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 isnât far from macos, and thatâs 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.
â
People can only believe that microsoft loves ââââlinuxââââ if they donât know what ââââlinuxââââ is because obfuscated behind a purely technical term, instead of the original, ideologically charged term, GNU.
â
Same thing for open source. The definition is basically the same as libre software, but itâs a new term. Why? To avoid saying free as in freedom and replace it by âsourceâ and âopennessâ ⌠It even introduced a new ambuigity, now a lot of people believe that âopen sourceâ means that itâs just about the code source being available âŚ
â
By replacing the original, ideologically charged lingo, by corporate newspeak, they paved the way for revisionism :
â
https://youtu.be/fJA9eiUktcA
â
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.
â
I donât know about yâall, but my system wasnât started in 1991 by a cs student for fun, and itâs 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.
â
So I donât mention the kernel personally if am somewhere where I know people will understand me by referring to the system by only âGNUâ, like here. I donât care about running a specific kernel, I care about my system obeying me, I care about freedom.
I donât care. Make a new sub and make a post that argues for everyone to switch, otherwise it all works fine imo
a Lemmy instance just to claim Linux should be called GNU/Linux đ¤Ą
Not to discredit the contributions of the FSF, Linux does not need GNU, but GNU sure as hell needs Linux. Hurd is a mess, and simply cutting out Linux from the name when it is the most important, complicated piece of the OS is a bit dumb. If we didnât have GNU, Linux would be doing just fine something like Musl, the BSD compiler, and Busybox. Without Linux, GNU would be nothing but an experimental LibC, Compiler, and Shell.
Without the GNU project there wouldnât even be a GNU GPL with its copyleft that protects the Linux kernel for being raped by corps. Without Linux GNU would simply use another Libre kernel, like it even actually does in systems such as Debian GNU/kfreeBSD. Linux is only useful to us because it adopted GNUâs copylefted license which allowed us to use it as GNUâs kernel. GNUâs the true historic root of our system and itâs great because it always stood for a libre system for the sake of it, Linux is nothing but a kernel which, without the freedom and copyleft of the GNU GPL, would be irrelevant to us, or at best a removedd out project like BSD.
And then iGNUranza
I mean youâre free to call it GNU as long as it refers to GNU & nothing else
Yeah, am not going to refer to Alpine as GNU for instance of course. itâs just as a nickname for distros in general, like âlinuxâ is often used.