I've been running Linux as my only computer OS for probably ten years, and have been very happy overall with the tech and how to use it. Dealing with the community is sometimes a litttle challenging; many people find there are many gatekeepers, many opinions and yes, still many
holy wars. One is the title reference, that "it's not 'Linux', it's GNU-Linux!" Frankly I see this as off-putting to many, potentially a barrier to adoption; yes, there can be some toxicity within the communities.
Okay, we all get the point. Without gcc and the GNU toolchain, there might not ever have been a Linux kernel. But to be complete, if you're talking about Linux on the desktop then in his day and age you're almost certainly also using systemd for managing daemons and services, and either X window or Wayland for controlling the graphics. So to be complete, are we to call "Linux" by the full name "GNU systemd X Linux"?
If I'm in a conversation about computing and someone mentions Linux, the geeks, the people who know, understand that "Linux" includes everything else needed to operate a computer, be it systemd, Bash or other command interpreters, text editors, and the like. Sooner or later, discussing Linux means remembering a whole list of the components required for a usable operating system. Sooner or later describing the OS ends up like a Starbucks' customer order, taking several breaths to complete. say "Linux" and everyone know what you mean.
"GNU/systemd/X/Linux?" At what point does this become absurd? I have no desire to perpetuate the holy war begun by the likes of Richard Stallman, just point out the limitations of the argument and pray for common sense.
Iron Noder 2024 #3
xclip -o | wc -w
199