GNU utilities are an essential part of operating system. They work
with a lot of different kernels. I use GNU and Linux so I call it GNU/Linux.

Try replacing or removing GNU userland.

GPL has got a big job done and FSF has credit for it.

They chose the best option for free software.

Focusing on free software is the best option, and that is not to ignore the GNU Project.

I’m the chief webmaster of the GNU operating system — and yes, there are many many versions of the GNU OS being used today.

To clear a few things up…

* GNOME is part of the GNU Project — one of those most, if not the most, common desktop for GNU/Linux

* While GNU did develop many programming tools, there are many many applications, from Gnumeric and GIMP, to GNU Cash and GNU Gnash — spreadsheets, image editors, financial applications and Flash players are all much more user focused than kernel or our programmer tools.

* For example, GNU packages accounts for 14.79% of the 16.5GB of source packages used to build the Main repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution (deltad). They also constitute 6.69% of the 27GBs of source packages from which the Universe repository is built. Linux weighs in at about 253MB and accounts for approximately 1.5% of the source code needed to build the Main repository.

* Furthermore, Linux itself is generally built using GNU libraries and GNU tools, and on many systems depends on them being there.

* However, it’s not just a matter of accuracy as it relates to lines of code. It’s about the motivation and goals that got those lines written. By mentioning GNU, you are foregrounding the ethical commitment its hackers have to free software. The foregrounding of these principles is exactly the reason why some would prefer we
omit GNU.

* Bear in mind, we’re not talking about a single operating system, but rather, a very large class of operating systems, all of which have Linux as their kernel and a suite of libraries, applications and utilities from the GNU operating system. All distributions also contain software that is not from the GNU operating system, and all distributions contain software that is not part of the Linux kernel.

* The name GNU refers to the fact that the system was built for freedom — “join us, value your freedom and together we can preserve it”. We refer to Linux in conjunction with GNU, because without it GNU would be unable to run on thousands of different hardware platforms, yet the Linux kernel itself is not fully committed to freedom. It distributes proprietary software in the kernel, in the form of firmware.

* Even if Linux was completely devoid of non-free firmware, it would still make sense to refer to the distribution as GNU/Linux, because many distributions contain, or offer proprietary software in their installers and repositories — the extent to which they can do this is severely tempered by the significance of the GNU name. This name is inseparable from the ethical motivations that led to the free software movement.

Without it, chaos would rein supreme in the “open source” and “free software” world. Just think about hundreds of poor-quality fragmented operating system kernels, a hundredfold device driver headaches, and most importantly,
**NO COMMUNITY of this size**

Please, for heaven’s sake, the License is a thousand times more valuable than the GNU tools/utilties themselves. GNU may well rewrite some of those from scratch for future computing systems, but the license stays.

You simply cannot argue with the fact that the most important product of the FSF is the movement and the GPL.

There’s no Solaris GPL, Linus Torvalds GPL or GNOME GPL, KDE GPL or Apache GPL.

It is the GNU GPL and that is the __single__ backbone of the huge “open source” or “free software” collection.

If you disagree with this, you show that you haven’t given 10% of the thought to the License, as you have to the technical details of the code.

The license is goddamn crucial!

THE Single most important thing.

And, it comes from GNU/FSF.

So, GNU/Linux is good. But of course, the marketing needs “Linux” and “Firefox”. Human breath is not too long, and humans are averse to long names for daily perceptions. Examples are - Rob, Dick, Tom, Ed, Larry, Jon, maddog, Joe, Bill, ….

Flame on!

Regards to all geeks and nerds!

There is nothing new here regarding the fact that people use the same word to refer to different conceptual understandings. There is no doubt about the technical meaning of operating system but as far as users are concerned they may not even know what an operating system is.

Even the notion of a desktop environment is passing into the realm of those more technologically knowledgeable and more often than not is used to refer to just the screen view that has icons on it.

“General users” (however one wants to draw those lines) use Windows or Apple or Excel or Office as some above have mentioned and one can hear if one is listening that people also use email, YouTube, Itunes, Google. One might look at a user as being at the highest level of abstraction (for those into OOP what would that be, a “super-class”?). Words like desktop environment,operating system, window manager are the words associated with lower levels of abstraction, they are like objects, black boxes, the details hidden.

We (those of use who read articles such as the one to which I am commenting) inhabit a world influenced by its Unix roots, technical, opinionated, self-reliant. But we occasionally should remember that we are a subset, a black box, an encapsulated object which the average user describes with a single word, geek. To which I say, no harm, no foul.

Now what was the author saying about monolithic and micro-kernels ?