Translate this page using the Google Translator button above!
IT Specialist Blogs
Interested in Blogging on IT Specialist.com? Please contact us!
Gain Insight from Industry Leaders Interviewed by IT Specialist.com
Over 6,000 Members
On Demand Archives (Webcast)
The word "Linux" has entered into the English language meaning a complete Unix-like operating system based on the Linux kernel, which was originally written by Linus Torvalds.However there are people that claim that Linux is *just* a kernel, and not a full OS. People who make such distinctions often insist on using the GNU/Linux moniker.So, is Linux an OS, a kernel or both? Should we call it Linux or GNU/Linux?Twitter: https://twitter.com/garyexplainsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/garyexplains/
Gary has an amazing way to explain things. I love his videos.
Well said, brother!!! I've been arguing this point for years! GNU is not Linux!
linux is a kernel No way its an OS
I call it "GNU operating system"
Could you explain the difference amongst Interactive, Non-Interactive, Login and Non-Login Shells?
I think it is funnier to Duck Duck Go!
Most of the using brand names as verbs (or instead of the generic name) thing usually doesnt bother me that much, but I really hate the Kleenex one
a wild Stallman appearsSeriously, the bottom line is that GNU/Linux is very awkward to both say and type.
Thank you Sir.
Stand alone Linux is not operating system yet, because it cant boot without third party software. It became operating system but only with something like grub at least.Of course you are correct that, there are Linux distros without gnu software, and Linus Torvalds say truth that naming distribution shouldn't be limited.However I think that you basically don't like Richard Stallman, and its not good because he is second most important person in Linux history, and probably most important person in free software ideology.He was the only one who not abandoned free software ideology when everyone else went commercial (I'm not blaming them because - Ce La Vie).We should be grateful him for that, thanks to him we have Linux world - not only Unix world - where everything is on limited licences or closed, and expensive.
2:34 GNUances, ha...
Thanks for such an excellent explanation. It irks me every time someone corrects me with "it's GNU/Linux", when I say Linux.
Another reason not to call it GNU/Linux, is that it will confuse new users... especially those who aren't really tech minded.
U are just rockbuster busting doubts which i had like hard rocks. Can u please make video scope of python in linux and machine learning .
NB OpenOffice is EOL, please use LibreOffice...
Welcome to splitting hair university, where we learn to split a hair into 200 strands ;-))
Some of your arguments were fallacious. Not all arguments and you made really good points in your video. But there were some parts that were hard to accept.1) Since there is a technical and highly evaluated book on the field of OS, it's downright unjustifiable to use layman's definition presented in both dictionaries, which, in practice, puts the three definitions in the same level of credibility -- which should not be the case.2) Contrary to the dictionaries, which have little space to talk about OS'es, a book about OS'es has all its space devote to the subject. So, the author had space to write separately a) one or more definitions of OS and then b) illustrate some of its characteristics.You took the characteristics and used them as if they were the actual definition.The characteristics were similar to the layman's definitions find in the dictionaries, so that could have cause the confusion.3) As to whether Linux should be considered a complete OS or not, note that, even for embedded systems (strip naked of user interface), it was necessary to have more layers and module than those present in Linux kernel alone. I.e., without those modules, Linux alone will make the embedded system run. After all, there are way more functionalities outside the kernel than simply user interface. For this point, the provider of the additional software is immaterial, once additional software was needed.3a) Linus Torvalds himself never called his creation an OS, but only a kernel.Before ending, I should say that I agree with you that not every distribution should be called GNU/Linux. If all layer above the Linux kernel are GNU, then generic name is due. But there are always softwares shipped together from other projects, so the above almost never happens. This is unfair to every other developer (including FSF) and disproportionately advantageous for Linux, a name easier to connect to Unix than all the others.
I call it Linux, and not gnu/linux (it's quite mouthful ). So yeah, Linux for me despite the fact I use gnu tools.