I mostly understand all that so far. My main question is why people get upset at folks who refer to it as gnu/Linux? I’ve seen a couple arguments about it on reddit, but I’m not sure how common it is for people to be actually upset, or if it’s more meme arguing. And I also I have no idea if I should say I use Linux or gnu/Linux since I use Fedora. Lol.
I’m one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it’s the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren’t as common as they used to be).
To me, it’s just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn’t, who cares? Like, you wouldn’t say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux… Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.
You refer to it as gnu/Linux, I won’t be upset. I’ll just slightly roll my eyes at your choosing to utter such an inconvenient word to make a point that doesn’t really need to be made. But ultimately it’s your breath that is being wasted not mine, so I don’t really care.
You start arguing about it, then it gets annoying because give it a rest. I am perfectly aware that gnu is a core part of the whole thing, I just don’t think it matters that I verbally pay tribute to it every single time I mention Linux. One word is enough to let you know wtf I’m talking about 99.999999% of the time, so I’m not adding another one that’s already implied basically always. Still not upset though.
Not the person you originally asked, but the main reason is probably that referring to it as gnu/Linux is 1) already deeply associated with the Richard Stallman meme, to the point that referring to it in that way automatically comes across as either a joke or just a person being intentionally contrarian, and 2) just really weird sounding. In the minds of most people, there is no real reason to refer to it as GNU/Linux, because the actual operating system that does the things the operating system is expected to do - as in provide an API for syscalls, memory management, etc - is just “Linux.” That it’s routinely built alongside a set of core utilities designed and maintained by GNU is largely pointless. It’d be like referring to a hamburger as Buns/Hamburger or Buns+Hamburger. It’s just…weird.
I mostly understand all that so far. My main question is why people get upset at folks who refer to it as gnu/Linux? I’ve seen a couple arguments about it on reddit, but I’m not sure how common it is for people to be actually upset, or if it’s more meme arguing. And I also I have no idea if I should say I use Linux or gnu/Linux since I use Fedora. Lol.
I’m one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it’s the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren’t as common as they used to be).
To me, it’s just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn’t, who cares? Like, you wouldn’t say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux… Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.
I don’t know about upset.
You refer to it as gnu/Linux, I won’t be upset. I’ll just slightly roll my eyes at your choosing to utter such an inconvenient word to make a point that doesn’t really need to be made. But ultimately it’s your breath that is being wasted not mine, so I don’t really care.
You start arguing about it, then it gets annoying because give it a rest. I am perfectly aware that gnu is a core part of the whole thing, I just don’t think it matters that I verbally pay tribute to it every single time I mention Linux. One word is enough to let you know wtf I’m talking about 99.999999% of the time, so I’m not adding another one that’s already implied basically always. Still not upset though.
Not the person you originally asked, but the main reason is probably that referring to it as gnu/Linux is 1) already deeply associated with the Richard Stallman meme, to the point that referring to it in that way automatically comes across as either a joke or just a person being intentionally contrarian, and 2) just really weird sounding. In the minds of most people, there is no real reason to refer to it as GNU/Linux, because the actual operating system that does the things the operating system is expected to do - as in provide an API for syscalls, memory management, etc - is just “Linux.” That it’s routinely built alongside a set of core utilities designed and maintained by GNU is largely pointless. It’d be like referring to a hamburger as Buns/Hamburger or Buns+Hamburger. It’s just…weird.