Why do most people call Linux?
The naming of the Linux system spread quickly enough to spread the right information.
Those who combined Linux and GNU did not know what they were doing. They focused their attention on Linux and did not notice that most of the output was GNU ... they started calling it "Linux" even though that name did not suit what they produced. It has been years before we have been aware of this problem and ask people to correct this practice; by that time, the bluster was common.
Should we call it "GNU / Linux" instead of "Linux"?
Not always - just when you talk about the whole system. When you want to refer to the kernel, you should use the name "Linux" chosen by its developers.
When people call the whole system "Linux", they call the whole system its nucleus. This causes a lot of confusion, because only experts can distinguish between talking about the kernel and the whole system. It will go beyond naming the whole system "GNU / Linux" and naming the kernel Linux.
Is not the GNU / Linux shortcut to Linux like Microsoft Windows shortcut to Windows ?
It is useful to abbreviate a user name, but the shortcut should not be misleading.
Most people in developed countries know that « Windows » system developed by Microsoft, so the abbreviation « Microsoft Windows » to « Windows » will not mislead anyone in the nature and origin of the system. The GNU / Linux shortcut to Linux gives a misconception of the origin of the system.
The same question is wrong because GNU and Microsoft are not the same thing. Microsoft Corporation; GNU operating system.
What is the difference between the operating system and the kernel?
When we use the term operating system, we mean a set of programs sufficient to use the computer to perform a set of tasks. The operating system must be able to perform the tasks many users want to be complete.
The kernel is one program in the operating system which is the program that distributes the hardware resources on the rest of the programs that are running. The kernel also initiates and runs other programs.
Some people use the term " operation " to refer to the " nucleus " of interference. Both uses are old. The use of the " operating system " to refer to the " kernel " exists in a number of books dealing with system design since the 1990s. At the same time (in the nineties) it was meant by « Unix operating system » Include all system software, but even if the Berkeley version of Unix included games. Since we planned to have GNU as a UNIX operating system, we use the term " operating system " in the same context.
When people talk about "Linux operating system » , they use "operating system » in the same context in which we use it : they mean a full range of programs. If this is what you mean, it 's please CM system « GNU / Linux » . If you mean the kernel alone, the « Linux » is the correct name, but please tell « core » also to avoid the confusion that might result from the lack of clarity of the part that refers to it.
If you prefer to use another term such as " system distributions " for a whole set of programs, rather than " operating system " , that's fine. You will be talking about GNU / Linux distributions.
Since Linux is a secondary contribution, is not it just a matter of naming the system "GNU"?
No, it will not be contrary to the facts, but not the best. Below is why we called the system version " GNU / Linux " instead of "GNU":
The system is not GNU itself - it has another kernel (Linux). The distinction between GNU / Linux and GNU is useful.
It is not polite to ask people to stop the system's proportions to Leonas Torvalds. He has written an important component of the system. We would like to attribute to us the system to launch and further development of the system, but this does not mean that we treated to Jonas the same way that treats us by those who call the system « Linux » . We disagree completely with his philosophical views, but we deal with this dispute with respect and openness, not by removing him from the proportion of his contribution to the system to him.
Many people call the system « Linux » . If we say «GNU» they will not know that we are talking about the system itself. If we say " GNU / Linux " they will link him to what they heard about him.
GNU is a small part of the system, why should we remind it?
We found in 2008 that the GNU-15% packages are from the "main" repository for the GNU / Linux distribution. Linux format 1.5% of them. So the same argument will apply to more than the system called « Linux » .
GNU is a small part of the system today, and Linux is a smaller part of it. But they are the basis of the system. The system was built by combining them. So the name « GNU / Linux » appropriate is.
Why do you write "GNU / Linux" instead of "GNU Linux "?
Based on the rules of English, the interpretation of "GNU Linux" that "Linux" added to the "GNU". This either means "GNU version of Linux" or "GNU Linux package", both involved wrong.
Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it was not developed under the GNU Project or specifically contributed to the GNU project. Leonas Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as a project of his own, so GNU Linux is not right.
We are not talking about the GNU version of Linux kernel. GNU / Linux distributions have a special version of Linux because the "standard" version contains non-free firmware "blobs". If it were part of the GNU project, it could be called GNU Linux, but we do not want to call it that, because that's very confusing.
We're talking about a version of GNU (operating system), distinct as using Linux as its kernel. The slash is appropriate for this case because it means "combination" (remember "I / O".) This system is a combination between GNU and Linux, so its name is "GNU / Linux".
"Combination" There are other ways to express. If you think the plus sign is clearer, please use it. In Spanish the high police are clear: "GNU-Linux". In Spanish, we sometimes say "GNU Kun Linux".
Would not it be better to ask companies like Mandrake, Wardhat and IBM to name their distribution "GNU / Linux" rather than asking individuals?
The issue is not to choose one party over another. We ask companies, organizations and individuals to raise awareness. In fact, we have asked all three of these companies. Mandrake said she would use the term "GNU / Linux" on some occasions, but IBM and Wardat refused to help. One executive said, "This is purely a trade decision; we expect to make more money by calling it" Linux. " In other words, the company did not care what was right.
Why are you so late in asking for the name GNU / Linux?
In fact, we are not late. We started talking privately with developers and distributors on this subject in 1994, and we launched a public campaign in 1996. We will continue it whenever necessary.
What can we conclude from the naming of different systems?
Those who think the kernel is more important than all the other parts of the system say, "It's Linux, let's call it Linux." But each of these two systems is almost completely different, and all of them are called the same name. (It, for example, makes people think the nucleus is more important than all parts of the system).
In embedded small systems, Linux may be the most important part of the system; These systems are quite different from the GNU / Linux systems, where GNU is a larger share of Linux. The IBM system default system is different from both cases, and its name will be correct AIX / Linux: It is originally AIX, but Linux is its nucleus. These different names will show the difference between those systems for users.
Does Leonas Torvalds agree that Linux is the kernel?
He acknowledged this at first. The first Linux release notes that: "Most of the tools used with Linux are GNU software and are under GNU's abandoned rights. These tools are not in the distribution - ask me (or ask GNU) for more information. ".
Is not it better to call the system "Linux" and explain to people of origin in an interview not exceeding ten minutes?
If you help us make it clear to others, we appreciate your effort, but this is not the ideal way. It does not have the same effect as naming the GNU / Linux system, and your time will be wasted without much impact.
It will not be effective because you will be tired, and inevitably it will not spread. Some may hear your words and may learn the true picture of the origin of the system. But they probably will not repeat to others when they talk about the system. They will probably be called "Linux", and unintentionally, will contribute to spreading the wrong image.
It will not be effective because it takes longer. Writing and writing "GNU / Linux" will take you a few seconds (not a few minutes) every day, and you will be able to reach far more people this way. The distinction between Linux and GNU / Linux when writing and talking is the easiest way to help the GNU project