GNU And Linux Are Forever Linked By History

It never fails. Any time that I mention GNU/Linux on any of my videos, some wise guy has to chime in with "Stop calling it GNU/Linux...you can have Linux without GNU." Why do these people feel the need to state something that is obvious?

WATCH THIS VIDEO FOR A HISTORY OF GNU/LINUX:

WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?

DONATE CRYPTO:
💰 Bitcoin: 1Mp6ebz5bNcjNFW7XWHVht36SkiLoxPKoX
🐶 Dogecoin: D5fpRD1JRoBFPDXSBocRTp8W9uKzfwLFAu
📕 LBC: bMfA2c3zmcLxPCpyPcrykLvMhZ7A5mQuhJ

DT ON THE WEB:

FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE THAT I USE:

Your support is very much appreciated. Thanks, guys!

[geekmuffin]

As a *nix geek since '89, I've lived through a lot of the open source chapters of its history. I've experienced a range of emotions about rms (and Linus too actually), but I've always agreed 100% with what you just said, DT. Their contributions are immeasurable. The code and resulting ecosystems, although enormous, are only the tip of the iceberg. Attitudes and entire mentalities were forged by GNU, making new realms of progress possible. As you said, their contributions are to humanity, not just software. It is for that reason that I, personally, am partial to distros and publications that use the term "GNU/Linux" whenever they're referring to a product that is built on both. Most of the implementations I've ever used were indeed GNU on Linux. I have not followed the ongoing debates, so I have no clue who/what else I just associated myself with. All I know is how I feel about GNU, and that is grateful. Credit where credit is due!

[mattfromeurope]

IMO the most important development from the GNU project is the GPL. It's the next best thing to permanent copyleft licensing there is. Thanks to GPL it's ensured that we will still be able to use computers the way we ourselves want to in the future - something proprietary software doesn't guarantee. And with developments like Secure Boot and "lockout chips" on more modern mainboards I can 100% understand why Stallman doesn't want to use proprietary technology, even if it means less convenience - it's simply more freedom!

[TheExardk]

It's a marriage of two great projects. Even though I just say Linux, I still feel all of GNU around me. Doesn't mean I lack respect for any of them. Names don't matter, deeds do.

[matthewsjardine]

I recently watched Revolution OS. A great documentary that explores the history of GNU & Linux, told by the founders and key stakeholders themselves. This is fresh in my mind.

[moroc]

I normally say just Linux for commodity, but I always mention the GNU project whenever someone asks me about Linux. I think it's an important historical precedent to know about if you migrate to Linux. Even if some distributions are more pragmatic nowadays, knowing the FOSS philosophy helps you understand why some things are the way they are and appreciate them for what they are and not what you want them to be

[gregf]

Agree, Derrick. GNU CoreUtils are _way_ ahead of more conservative implementations, like those available in BSD/MacOS. Fortunately I have installed the GNU CoreUtils on MacOS and BSD and they're way more handy, including lots of extra options.

[meowmeowy]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, Linux/GNU/X/systemd, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Linux plus GNU plus X plus systemd. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning operating system made useful by the X Window System and systemd comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the Linux/GNU/X/systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Linux/GNU/X/systemd which is widely used today is often called "GNU/Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Linux/GNU/X/systemd system.

There really is a GNU/Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. GNU/Linux is normally used in combination with X Window System and systemd: the whole system is basically GNU/Linux with X and systemd added, or Linux/GNU/X/systemd. All the so-called "GNU/Linux" distributions are really distributions of Linux/GNU/X/systemd.

[KevinBReynolds]

Thank you for your well grounded sense of reality DT. It is very much appreciated.

[krzysztofwaleska]

Big + for simple common sense against distorting reality and history. I was there, I have seen that. You spoke common sense truth.

[andrewnorris]

The contribution of the compiler, debugger and many other things - made everything possible and accelerated progress.

[noam]

When they get angry, tell them that if they only want the Linux of their distro, that is ONLY referring to the Kernel. ALL of the utilities that we call core commands, that is the GNU part. Stalman is a flawed hero in the history of computing.

[PearComputingDevices]

I fully agree with Derricks assessment here.

[kmemz]

GNU exists. Linux exists. They're separate, independent projects, both very old, and very well tied together, even if they have little explicit need for *specifically* each other. The philosophies between the two projects don't particularly align at every single point, and some of the people or entities involved in each project are very eccentric and/or controversial.
I disagree that they should be almost mandatorially tied together to make a functioning system, I believe that there should be more coreutil systems available than the limited options we have, but GNU and Linux, on their own, are both respectable projects.
As a footnote, the same argument people make for GNU/+Linux can be made for several aspects of Linux. Dpkg/Linux, DNF/Linux, Pacman/Linux, Emerge/Linux; GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux; SystemD/Linux, SysVInit/Linux, S6/Linux, Runit/Linux, OpenRC/Linux; You get the idea. It's a bit more of a stretch but you could consider X/Linux or Wayland/Linux, even denote the specific WM or DE/Linux.
Each one of those examples (except for the stretch examples of X/Linux and Wayland/Linux) describes Linux+one of the many mandatory system applications that makes Linux work at all in its modern form. I'd argue that having some selection of at least one of each of the above categories of tools is a necessity for working with Linux in any capacity, making them equally as important to the system as the GNU toolset.
As a result, since the only truly "accurate" way to apply the denominated linux terminology would be to say "I use Pacman/SystemD/GNU/Linux", it would be better to just use the term, "The Linux Ecosystem", or just ignore the whole thing entirely, as most do, and just call it Linux.

[Subzearo]

Somebody: GNU/Linux
🤓: Aaackshully, you can run Linux without GNU...

[DrZingo_]

I've been using Linux and BSD since the early 90's. I have as big respect for R.M. Stallman, E.S. Raymond etc. as for Torvalds. I use some GNU software, but not on all my systems.
I don't call it GNU/Linux, though I have no problem with people calling it that. For me it's just that I sometimes not using any GNU at all.
I like your videos about FOSS, GNU, philosophy etc. I don't agree with your choice of applications and languages all the time, but that's another story.
Keep it up DT.

[keylowmike]

I bet those same people will stand in front of a mirror and say Linux three times to get Richard Stallman to appear behind them.

[bobbybologna]

You just have to pay GNU respect no matter how you cut it. People are mad because they want praise for reinventing the wheel, its as silly as it sounds.

[georgH]

Totally agree. Without GNU and the GPL, I doubt the Linux kernel would have ever existed as it does today. We would be on an NT-dominated world.

[asbeltrion]

Hey, quit calling it GNU//Linux because you can run GNU without Linux.

[abhijitsipahimalani]

Hey DT, I fail to see how you could say musl is “inferior” to glibc when it has many of the same features of glibc and is far more lightweight