No. I think we should not call GNU as GNU/Linux.
The Debian GNU system that i have has 1000s of programs. In those i am daily used 10-15 programs. Its inconvenient to say GNU/Linux/Abiword/gnumeric/mysql/gtkmm/….
So i like to call it simply GNU. Linux kernel is an important work But it Just another program like Abiword or Iceweasel. All the programs should have equal importance. Linux is one POSIX complaint kernel. Today we are using that. May be tomorrow we may another. But important point is our freedom. GNU is for freedom.
So don’t call your OS as GNU/Linux. Simply call it GNU.
we cannot think of a situation where there is no kernel. Also we cannot think of a situation where there is no BIOS, no device drivers, no CPU, no electricity etc. That kind of thought will never going to end.
Important thing is about freedom and how a user sees a computer as whole.
for example, think that i brought a washing machine. the important thing that i care for is my cloths, soap, water and electricity. i don’t care whether there is a gearbox with big list of features or a high end embedded program etc. its the concern of the manufacturer.
i am not reducing the importance of kernel program. But its the time we the free software people think beyond a developer perspective. If you ask an ordinary user to show his computer. I think more than 60% will show their monitor. (just a guess. didn’t done any survey !). For ordinary user its hi/her data and program to manipulate that data are important than anything else.
I feel that free software community is missing that perspective. we need to put more focus on ordinary user (more intuitive way of doing things) and better documentation etc.
Okay, when I started reading this post I expected something completely different. I was a bit surprised. Just calling it GNU isn’t a good solution either though. Believe me, a lot of kernel hackers are upset by people like you and me using GNU/Linux already.
However, the point in using GNU/Linux and not GNU/Linux/Abiword/gnumeric/… is that both GNU and Linux are the main components which are responsible for actually having an operating system. Think of it this way: The system is going to work without Abiword as well. It’s also going to work without X.org. However, without either Linux or GNU the whole operating system becomes unusable. That’s the point in using GNU/Linux. Oh, and besides that, there’s also good old GNU/Hurd, which is a bit different from GNU/Linux and if you use “GNU” people could get you wrong on that.
You are right in your arguments but at the same moment wrong.
Linux is an established name – “nobody” knows GNU. So changing the name would be the same disaster as if CocaCola would change the name to OnlyCola because they left the Cocaine out of the recipe. Remember – the final goal is World Domination! 😉
I agree with you. How about Nexenta? It uses GNU + Solaris. So the system is still a GNU system, but no Linux. And you can do the same things as in GNU/Linux.
The same goes for Hurd. Someday it will be complete. And it´s a more advanced kernel, so most people will probably migrate to Hurd.
GNU is Linux´s Father!! It wouldn ´t have been possible for Linux to exist without GCC
Who cares as long as it does what I want it to do =)
Actually, my final goal is not world domination. It’s world liberation. That’s a major difference in the attitudes of RMS vs LT.
keeping your line of thoughts, then your OS should be called GNU/Apache/Mozilla/BSD….
Well, personally I’d like to see a SEPERATE OS specifically called GNU. And what’s stopping any old developer from taking a distro like gNewSense, and slowly morphing it into a full-featured OS running entirely free software, and a rewritten kernel. Heck, Ubuntu Studio rewrote the kernel and it works great.
“Believe me, a lot of kernel hackers are upset by people like you and me using GNU/Linux already.”
on the contrary, I think many kernel hackers are motivated by the spread of free software to users like you and me!
I think you’re right, it should be called just GNU or free software