and by the rest of the world.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
trying to force the notion Linux should be called GNU/Linux.
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.
As Linux IS written in formal writing and is not informal in any way except by the GNU/Linux advocates.
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.
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.
Depending on the context it may refer to the kernel or to the Linux distros.
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.
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 :
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.
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 “Linux” 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 it’s really too much to type GNU/Linux, might has well shorten it to just GNU. That’s what I chose to do personally, what I think makes more sens and is a better choice compared to shortenning to “Linux” for the name of the system in general imo …
but that’s 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 “open source”, as a pro-corporate newspeak, so I either shorten it to GNU/Linux, because the name “Linux” is much more widely reknowned and recognized out there, or GNU for short around people that know about it.
The recursive acronym idea behind the name GNU is nice tho.
It’s true that Linux has a nice ring to it, but GNU ain’t that bad and it can be pronouced “new” or spelling the letters, or even “gannooo” 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 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 :
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.
Perhaps we could create a c/GNU community?
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)
But I’d like to remember that there are more than a handful of Linux distributions we use everyday while forgetting they don’t use GNU Software at all.
I get reminded of that every time the conversation comes sup, it’s systematic, even when I preemptively mention it. I couldn’t 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/o058hi/not_gnu/h1tpf29/
Debian did it before, Debian/kfreeBSD, Glorious GNU free of that Linux virus.
And by the way that’s also why GNU makes more sens imo, because when people talk about “Linux”, saying something like “try Linux!”, they obviously don’t mean Android, everybody already runs Android, they don’t 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 “try libre systems that our GNU based distros are”. Because if it’s not about freedom, then it’s 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 that’s when I always repeat :
Words control ideas, ideas control people (Heard from Michael Parenti)
Damn, I want GNU Hurd to be s table soon so I could flex about my GNU system.
Not going to happen unfortunately, it’s basically stopped, I think I’ve read somewhere that the last commit to hurd’s code was something like 3 years ago … The FSF and GNU project don’t consider it worth investing in when Linux-libre does the job.
That won’t 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 don’t 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 it’s the best GPLed kernel out there for the moment … You know, that’s the idea am pushing out there, that’s 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 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.
Without the GNU project there wouldn’t 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 GNU’s copylefted license which allowed us to use it as GNU’s kernel. GNU’s the true historic root of our system and it’s 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.