A Linux distro is much more than GNU software. A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.

Stallman cannot really make any such demands.

Edit: sorry for the confusion, I meant the Linux kernel, which is not gnu.

> A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. > Stallman cannot really make any such demands.

That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term "GNU/Linux" and recommendation that others join him in using the term "GNU/Linux". This is not a "demand" as you claim. Stallman explains his position in brief in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux , at length in https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html and there's a FAQ as well.

In fact the specific point you raise has been raised before and is addressed quite well across multiple questions in the FSF's FAQ on the term GNU/Linux:

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others -- Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 -- My distro's developers call it “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like?

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd -- Should we say “GNU/BSD” too?

For a while Debian has distributed multiple systems where GNU was the predominant OS atop other kernels--GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. It helps people understand the major components involved by naming things according to what they are. Such naming is also fair to those who ask for a share of the credit for their major contribution to the overall work, as the GNU Project asks people to give them a share of the credit for their major contribution.

Not true. GNU coreutils comes standard on most distros.

>There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.

What? GNU never finished Hurd kernel and that is why it is now GNU/Linux because Linux was the missing piece since they could not get Hurd working. In other words, there is no GNU kernel. Please don't just make things up.

Nobody is talking about Hurd.

Alpine Linux for example replaces libc with musl and gnu binaries with BusyBox.

That does raise the question, can I safely not call a busybox based distribution GNU/Linux in front of RMS, particularly if it uses uClibc?

Don’t you need gcc to compile the Linux kernel? At least it was like this for a very long time.

Nobody in GNU is suggesting that all software compiled with gcc must be called GNU.

The Linux kernel is not GNU code.

> There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.

What, like Hurd with a non-GNU userland? Where? I know there is Debian with Hurd, but that still uses GNU userland.

Arguably, most of the components end users care about (like desktop environment) have nothing to do with the GNU project.

The G in GNOME originally stood for GNU, actually.

Gnome is still listed as a GNU package here: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html

Today, however, Gnome is a rather independent project, with its own GNOME Foundation.

(There was also GNUStep but it was never popular)

Gnome may be (historically), but other DEs like KDE were never associated with it.

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

No, abvr, RMS never wanted anyone to name the Linux kernel GNU/Linux.

He wants people to call GNU/Linux a system composed of components from GNU and the Linux kernel. He considers the GNU part essential. He also wants that so people hear about GNU and free software, because, well, that's the whole point of his work. Whether it is a good strategy or whether you don't find it convenient is irrelevant. If you use any project, it is fair that their author expect due credit.

I do say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, but it does not make it right. I do speak about Free software though. And I will certainly not argue against one of the author of GNU/Linux on how he wants people to name the project. You can give your opinion, but show some humility and respect. What you write as truths are in fact just your opinion, to which I happen to not agree with.

Windows is not comparable to the Linux kernel, the Windows NT kernel is, and your system is full of GNU, whether you like it or not. Starting from the libc, the bootloader and many other important component. Nobody argues about how which or which part of your system is essential or not. Everything is useful and needed. That is just not the point.

And Linus is not above RMS, and RMS is not above Linus. No authority is involved.

> No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler.

And glibc. And the coreutils, findutils, make, screen, bash, gzip, and grep. Those are just the things I used in the last 10 minutes. Other notables off the top of my head include flex, bison, guile, and emacs.

You are selling the FSF extremely short if you draw the line at GCC.

Yes, settle down, I did it merely to initiate some fun banter on folks here, but it looks like we are getting some valuable insights and I am interested in what people of this time have to say on this topic. This is a copypasta after all.

This is a famous reddit copypasta. Could you please not do this in HN? This is not reddit. We're trying to have valuable conversation here.

I did not know that, and I did not know r/copypasta. This is from October 2017 or earlier. I have been successfully trolled. Thanks for the heads up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/7lt7i0/no_richar... https://pastebin.com/hjagCZpK

I think this is much older than October 2017: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/linux

KnowYourMeme.com claims it's from 2011. I don't want to spend time checking it, but I remember seeing this copypasta during my entire experience in reddit (since 2014/2015 ish)

"You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?"

If RMS would worry too much about bothering others, he would never have started the Free Software movement.

This is a long rant that gets rambling in parts. The reference to XFree86 before it got renamed to XOrg some time ago has me wondering if you copy-pasted from some 90s thing.

But GCC and related stuff like binutils are not the only important code contributions from GNU. Glibc and bash are two that immediately come to mind. Certainly there are others.

(Though before the late 1990s Linux had its own non gnu libc..)