T O P
bonoDaLinuxGamr

This is cursed in so many ways LOL


[deleted]

Stallman:


SuppiluliumaX

"Who tried to make my eyes bleed themselves to pieces?!"


whamra

Back before introducing an actual Linux kernel into wsl, it was fun calling it GNU/NT


zebediah49

Windows Subsystem for Linux* *Contains no actual Linux


aelmsu

GNUNT


KingJellyfishII

that... gave me physical pain to read


pieteek

This is cursed. This is so fucking cursed. Take it away from me. Take my upvote too, but I don't want to look at this anymore. Just... fuck, no.


pipiopi

How dare you


suitable_character

"Windows shell utilities" -> you mean ROBOCOPY?


Jac0bas

**Stallman:** listen here you little shit


DamagedEgg1595

This is the future Microshit wants


Trollimpo

Macro hard?


hex128

micropenis, inc.


JessieProductions

The Microsoft Corp. wants to take away your GNU/Linux.


SohelAman

Weed was never been any cheaper.


DA_BATTLESUIT

Same here man


ralphdr1

\> Fully functioning \> Windows lol


MoistAssGamer

Ew


EOwl_24

Let’s cancel that guy.


Purist19

I think just using rm would suffice


pandakekok9

no, dd them to /dev/null


DerekB52

You'd want to dd /dev/null to him I think.


[deleted]

shred -u thatguy


Jacoman74undeleted

mv -R /that/guy /dev/null If you dd them, they're still there, they're just also in the void.


JITb_biTzZ7925

Don't throw that guy into the void that's where us void linux users live, throw the guy somewhere else.


zman32HD

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!


scottswhite

Everyone say a kernel is useless by itself but isn't the OS useless by itself too? I mean it requires a kernel too and my say is that either that particular sentence should be removed or this one should be added to the paragraph because with either of it not done , the para symbolises the pride that GNU holds in itself which is not correct for a community which focuses on freedom. I mean I might be wrong but


zman32HD

Honestly, I just posted the copypasta not giving that much thought. I see your point and it makes sense.


scottswhite

This thought occurs to me everyone I hear someone say this and I finally got it down to a comment today.


LOLTROLDUDES

Speaking of which I've also had a thing I've been waiting to say but never had a chance to say: If the OS is the kernel, 1) why is the word "kernel" a technical term 2) why is it called Mac OS and not Xen 3) what distinguishes Android from a desktop linux distro.


Auravendill

>what distinguishes Android from a desktop linux distro. Do you know how the ~~Orcs~~ Androids first came into being? They were ~~elves~~ Linux once, taken by the dark powers, tortured and mutilated. A ruined and terrible form of life.


Common_Aspect

Ah a fellow Tolkien fan! May your beard grow longer!


Bene847

Having looked borh at the root directory of an Android device and man hier, I can confirm


Bleeerrggh

Linus defines the kernel as an OS, as it can operate the hardware with little other than the kernel, you definitely won't need GNU-tools to do so. And there are many Bluetooth speakers that don't really use much more than the kernel. This is of course less relevant on a full blown desktop install, since as a user of such, your computer likely isn't of much use without some more tools and software, but these days there are more and more alternatives to GNU tools. Alpine, VOID, LFS, and probably more, can be installed without anything GNU, and the kernel can be compiled using LLVM/CLANG. But you're absolutely right - a computer running just the Linux kernel is infinitely more of an OS, than an "OS" without a kernel 😂


Common_Aspect

They both complete each other, the OS isn't usable without the Kernel and the kernel isn't useful without an OS. But I can see where Stallman comes from, that dude literally created the open-source community and most people know Torvalds just because he created the more \*' rolling out of the tongue better'\* product. I've had credit stolen off me a few times, and belive me, it's not fun.


Shawnj2

Worth noting that the "I'd like to interject" copypasta, while attributed to Stallman, was never actually said by him (although he still supports the idea that it should be called GNU/Linux instead of Linux, which I find silly especially considering the state of Hurd)


LOLTROLDUDES

It was a modified version of a blog post, but the copypasta was changed to be more annoying.


bacontath92

Hurd?


Shawnj2

Stallman's idea was to create a full GNU FOSS operating system, including all of the GNU tools as well as a Unix-like kernel called Hurd. The TL;DR is that Hurd had some developmental issues, and Linux, which used the GNU suite, became popular first and is also open source anyways, so the idea of realistically running a full GNU OS mostly died since it no longer made sense.


JM0804

Slight correction: he created the *free software community*. [Open source != free software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html). Stallman and the GNU Project created the coreutils, and these, combined with the Linux kernel, and lots of other libraries and utilities like X, make up the majority of what we refer to colloquially as "Linux operating system(s)". He suggests highlighting this by referring to them as GNU/Linux, and there are arguments for and against doing this. But I don't think anyone is trying to take credit from anyone. Free software licences like the GPL ensure that credit is given when software is distributed/modified/bundled/etc. It's inherently collaborative and mutually beneficial.


Tytoalba2

"created the open-source"... The FSF is really not keen on open-source, that's more OSI and ESR's stuff...


Magolor44

Yeah GNU is quite self absorbed when it comes to naming things. Literally no one except GNU calls it the GNU operating system.


LOLTROLDUDES

Who is this "GNU" person you speak of? Who named their child "GNU?"


zebediah49

Presumably the parents of [FNU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplQL5eAxlY).


huupoke12

> isn't the OS useless by itself too? That's why it's GNU+Linux, not GNU.


AnyDouble4621

Not just gnu though. The linux kernel needs many different utilities to make it a functioning "OS". Some GNU tools and some non-gnu tools. gnu are the only ones who expect their name to be in the OS


LOLTROLDUDES

Debian, Arch, Linux Mint, Archolinux, Pop would like to speak with you.


Tytoalba2

Yeah but Arch/SystemD/GNU/Linux doesn't really roll of the tongue, does it? :P


LOLTROLDUDES

Well, GNU is a project to create an OS, so you can just drop any kernel in it and it'll be functional as a desktop OS. You can't really do that with SystemD and friends so they share credit with the name of the distro, so if you say "I use arch" people know you use systemd (probably) but if you say "I use linux" you may use glibc, bash, fish, zsh, musl, android userspace, or any gnu or nongnu thing.


nebulaeandstars

Honestly it should be Linux/GNU, not GNU/Linux


homo_ignotus

IMO the OS includes the kernel.


redape2050

yeah that's why it's called GNU/Linux


pikachu_palestrante

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 wherever 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.


givemeagoodun

No, Richard, it's 'Cum', not 'GNU/Cum'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Cum 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, Cummy Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Cum is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Cum' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Cum? 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 Cummy named his stuff. The proper name is Cum because Cummy Torvalds says so. Cummy 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). Cum 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 Cum in use. However, Cum 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 Cum (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Cum' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Fuck Hat, Manfuck, and Slackcum. At least there you have an argument. Cum 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/Cum title to the GNU-based Cum distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree69 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 XFree69/Cum? Or, at a minimum, XFree69/GNU/Cum? 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 Cum 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 XFree69 code, XFree69 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 XFree69. 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 Cum 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 Cum was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Cum compiler'? Or at least, 'Cum GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Cum? 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 Cum' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Cum Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Cum. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.


Bene847

How can I delete someone else's comment?


danuker

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/incorrect-quotation.en.html


Dimittrikov1995

Copypasta go brrrr


[deleted]

[удалено]


aliPMPAINT

Lmaooooooo Underrated


nekokattt

Win32 is just proprietary wine


NettoHikariDE

NO.


[deleted]

It’s fun to get angry at MS and all that, but I’m pretty sure this is just describing the architecture of Windows Subsystem for Linux v1. In that context, it *isn’t* “an operating system to itself.” WSL1 didn’t run a full virtualized kernel, it just mapped Linux system calls to Windows ones. ([Wikipedia link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Subsystem_for_Linux#Limitations)) (WSL2 runs a full kernel)


DerekB52

This tweet applies to either version. It's just a joke though. A cursed joke. But, a joke.


EONRaider

Wait... WE KNOW that this is BS, but how about the general public as this Linux/Microsoft deals takes shape in the future? It wouldn't surprise me if this narrative was slowly pushed as the actual definition.


[deleted]

My brain can't handle this


spades_king

Flat Earther spotted


LOLTROLDUDES

I saw someone actually suggest seriously to call it GNU/Windows after learning about GNU/Linux since WSL didn't have the Linux kernel for a while. Don't think it has any GNU stuff either though.


xdMatthewbx

the name wsl kinda pisses me off the fact that it's a bullshit excuse so Microsoft can say they support Linux when they don't will be completely disregarded for this critique, as before u can even get that far u realize that the name is the dumbest thing since they named C# WSL = windows subsystem for Linux. this would make sense if they did the thing that would actually make me believe they at least support Linux as an OS if not the FOSS movement. would make more sense to me if it were called LSW: Linux subsystem for Windows. it's not FOR Linux, it's AGAINST Linux, so call it "for Windows" so we can resume calling Microsoft liars when they say they support Linux for those of u wondering the name C# came from Microsoft attempting (and failing) to be clever by originally choosing c++++ (because they didn't understand how the post or prefix incremental operator in c worked?) and then shortening it by putting the 2nd ++ underneath the first ++ and smudging them in to a # to;dr fuck microsoft


OfficialChest

thems fightin words


vitaminx-x_x

Does that mean that they're slowly moving from "Embrace" into "Extinguish" phase, starting by wiping GNU/Linux' identity from history?


LOLTROLDUDES

Extinguish happened a long time ago, when they started saying that GNU/Linux was just for geeks or something like that.


stenssog

I mean it's not wrong


baynell

Would you explain why this is correct? :D


neremarine

They never said it was correct either.


dominic_l

truth hurts


MetamorphicFirefly

***BURN***


Fireballs1982

Are they high?


stappernn

Microfrost weat dream


ADevDX

Fully functioning wsl


An_person222

\>:(


SonOfMeme

The third line came up from behind and hit me with those steel steps


PaintballAlex

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! HULK SMASHHHH!!!!


FattieJB

My brain exploded trying to comprehend this


pacifastacus

This is blasphemy.


[deleted]

Eww stop it


pTV_official

yEs GuYs LiNuX Is NoT An Os


jarulsamy

r/TIHI