NormalC

It is not “intended” to be an OS if you use GNU Hurd. That is literally the name of the operating system that launched the entire libre software movement. You don’t engage with it that way because linux comms don’t bother to educate their users at all.

Rms was right, “linux” users don’t care about history and “linux” communties stopped giving a shit.

First of all, this copypasta has never been said by anyone at the FSF or from the GNU project. People falsly attribute it to rms even though he has already made his thoughts clear on the matter. It’s just misinformation and a bastardized take on the naming discussion.

I mean most Linux systems with a few exceptions (looking at you Alpine) use gnu software in them

It’s not “GNU software in a linux system”, again, GNU is the name of the operating system. GNU packages were developed for that operating system. Alpine is not GNU, it is a NonGNU/Busybox + Linux operating system mainly targeted for embedded devices. Linux is not a GNU package, but was liberated by Torvalds to be included in the GNU operating system which we now refer to completely as GNU/Linux.

and it is a somewhat fair argument to say that a kernel isn’t an entire operating system and other factors should be considered

Such as the freedom of software writers and computer users. Calling the operating system “Linux” is taking away (even if not by intent) the very principle of freedom of the GNU operating system. It isn’t “somewhat fair”, far too many people who use Free software do not understand it entirely and thus are vulnerable to closing their hands from further liberation.

Also why the quotation marks? It is a Linux joke, and if you don’t like our humor than you can just kinda… Ignore it?

If “Linux humor” is repeating the same 5 or so jokes and endless banter about the same topics then it isn’t productive. Especially if that humor is just spreading misinformation in service of a cheap gag made by others. I’m just calling it out when I see it because I’m done giving a lot of yall the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Yeah these would be called NonGNU/Linux or Busybox/Linux.

Literally please stop posting this copypasta. I know you “linux” users only have like 4 jokes but this is just outdated and also false.

Because what you mentioned is ahistorical and based off reactionary history by bad actors.

Rms draws the line a GNU because GNU stands for a free operating system, which is what the GNU project is aiming towards. If this were purely a discussion about technicality, then we would be wise to let the matter drop, but that’s not whats at stake here.

shouldn’t I call my system Plasma/KWin/pacman/systemd/GNU/Linux?

You can, you literally can and it would be better that way to accurately describe what operating system you’re running. The shortest possible name is GNU, but that would be unfair to the contribution made by the linux foundation and the fact that multiple kernel projects do exist: so the name is GNU/Linux.

His essays on the topic which are publicaly accessible from the GNU website do discuss this.

other than to stroke his own ego

Rest assured that rms does not doing this out of ego tripping. Maybe you should tease Linus Torvalds for calling his kernel linux and the ENTIRE operating system linux. Torvalds is a multimillionaire who has used an apple M1 laptop. Stallman has never budged on libre software and directs his own life by his own stated principles. Call Rms stubborn, but never call him egotistical.

None of this is directed at you btw, it’s just something that always springs to mind for me whenever this topic comes up.

Please read Free Software, Free Society by Richard M Stallman so that this doesn’t have to keep springing up anymore. There are very few “linux” comm members who have read the foundational literature in full so I hope you do take my advice.

GNU is the name of the operating system. GNU packages like glibc and gcc can be used for an operating system. Gzip is a GNU package.

GNU is not a set of programs or libraries, it’s an operating system.

GNU packages is what you are referring to. But GNU itself is the name of the OS.

Oh no not your precious “linux” community. I’m so sorry for your loss.

Someone’s mad lol.

The control we should have was taken away from us. Though efforts like RISC-V and Asahi Linux are both examples of purposefully regaining control.

Linux-libre or Linux-gnu is the official de-blobbed linux kernel of the GNU project. However, Linux-libre is an ongoing project that needs to overcome microcode and blobs as does Hurd. The linux kernel itself is free software, but is often built or packaged with nonfree blobs.

Windows has continually added anti-features, jails, and other injustices. They are a subgroup of the microsoft corporation, which spends millions upon millions in legally gray practices to spread their nonfree software.

Windows gets users by capturing them.

Im sorry you’re insecure. I scream GNU because I’m not embarassed about having an opinion.

My “cause” doesn’t include kissing your ass when you feel uncomfortable.

macOS is based off FreeBSD, which is completely free. Not sure what you mean here.

I don’t know which part of the comment you are referring to, but stating that MacOS is based off of FreeBSD is the same fallacy as saying Android is based off Linux. The two proprietary systems (very few people run Android with a fully libre userland) have become so drastically different that it becomes just a historical fun fact. Not to mention your statement doesn’t paint the full story.

I don’t really see much documentation that shows GNU made Linus use GPL or not. You can’t assert that.

Torvalds states in this interview that: “So in the meantime people have pointed me to the GPLv2, and I decided that rather than just change my license by editing it again, I should just use an existing one.”

Sure, the GNU Project did not directly advise Torvalds to use the GPLv2. But Torvalds found utility in the GPL as a way to close the financial gap of distributing and support the kernel’s development.

They propose solutions that would require good sacrifices that many greedy people simply won’t follow.

No social movement has ever succeeded by appealing to the whims of the most selfish people. Most folks don’t use proprietary software out of any sort of greed, but because of envy and ignorance. Envy meaning that proprietary software and its propaganda is so prevalent in society that people feel like they will be harmed if they don’t use it. Ignorance is self-explanatory. At least in the US, scientific illiteracy is far too common and a well documented phenomena.

If you really think the status quo is “idealistic” then you don’t know what that word means.

I do think it’s idealistic for many in society to believe that the current proprietary model is sustainable. It’s an artifice that many governments and communities have opted in to. To stay on a sinking ship in hopes of it getting better is pretty idealistic, no? The status quo was a purposeful decision made by the parasitic hoarders of society to perpetuate, it is a constant ongoing theft of knowledge and wealth.

Despite how much software the FSF have funded, they’re still unable to attack.

True, they aren’t a multi-billionaire who strong-arms and bribes the US Congress to spread his OS and ideology throughout schools (cough Bill Gates). But I think a rag-tag group of volunteers have done immeasurable damage relative to their resources.

You can argue that any promotional stuff, including FSF, is propaganda being blasted to you 24/7.

This is in bad faith, you cannot equate the FSF with large multinational media firms. I wish the FSF’s message was blasted 24/7, but the reality is it’s not and it’s very disingenuous to say otherwise.

Linux is a practical response to non-freedom… but we need workable alternatives that can do many of the same stuff to switch to before we can rejoin freedom.

I don’t think you’ve actually read about the GNU project. You’re just repeating the GNU Project’s mission but falsely attributing it to Linux. “Workable alternatives” is also a misnomer. Free software is not an “alternative” to proprietary software. Free software is meant to invalidate and destroy the legitimacy of proprietary implementations. By saying alternative you’re subtly implying that nonfree software has a place in Computer Science and setting up Free software to always be beholden to its proprietary implementation. A nonfree firmware blob is not an “alternative” it’s a concession and a fatal flaw.

“ecosystem” is a misleading term here. There is no “ecosystem” in CS, market giants explicitly make decisions about what their product policy is and rarely budge on them out of goodwill. Ecosystem implies that we implicitly lack a large degree of control and are only observers. That may be true for cutting edge research (only sometimes from a certain perspective), but hardly the case for when a company wants to create jails in their software for their clients. Or refuse to release firmware for a wifi card that they don’t even sell anymore. Those are gardens meant to trap users in. The garden of the GNU project is all unapologetically libre software meant to prevent users from endangering themselves with nonfree software.

The GNU project never “allowed” non-free components, but they will always exist. The goal is to obtain a fully free operating system on all levels. It’s okay to use proprietary software for the purposes of study and reverse engineering (a la using UNIX to develop userland/kernel). What’s not okay is to stop agitating for more freedom.

The current GNU/Busybox + Linux desktop is virtually a complete operating system, but is held back by blobs and users advocating for proprietary software (users complaining that proprietary “X” doesn’t run on “Linux”).

We get market share by being more free, not by making ruinous compromises.

The strategy of the GNU project is to create and support as much free software as possible to make proprietary software obsolete.

Firmware is one of the biggest hurdles as the freeworld has the userland locked down for the most part (albeit some editing software like CAD or becoming feature competitive with photoshop).

There will always be people seeking to control others through dirty licenses and EULAs. The solution is not to target them (yet!) but to reject them and empower ourselves.

If that means not being able to use a wifi card: use an adapter! Or use ethernet. If that means we can’t get microcode, we’ll find cpus unencumbered by patents or reveree engineer them. Want to use an apple m1? There are people trying to liberate that machine as much as possible.

Linus Torvalds has a large political influence, even he couldn’t hold back and flipped off Nvidia. But Torvalds and the rest of the foundation don’t go further than that. They’re willing to criticize but not to condemn.

You’re right in that the larger hardware industry is an even bigger shithole artifice than IT is. Thats a failure of state actors who have an open secret of corruption (esp in the US) and laziness. Projects like RISC-V and coreboot are promising in that regard.

So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

Thats just life. This is still a transitionary period. But soon in the future, all software will be libre and all proprietary elements will be purged, never to come back ever again.

No one is here to coddle your feelings. Enjoy being a loser bootlicker, you never cared in the first place and want to project that onto others.

I mean the GPL allowed linux to become a commercial entity. And the whole “professional” outlook is because theres a ton of companies who contribute either funds or development to the project.

Hurd is not a monolithic kernel, so it’s an interesting technical endeavor. It’s also a GNU package which means it’s guaranteed to stay libre.

Hurd is also a smaller project relative to linux without the many eyes of the Linux board members.

It is a “zealot” opinion because I don’t topple over at the slightest breeze.

Both Linux and Hurd are libre software. However, the freedom of linux is compromised as torvalds set the standard for how OEMs can circumvent the GPLv2.

“viable competitor” is not the correct term to use. It miscontrues decades of history and circumstance.

Hurd is far better than Linux in terms of ensuring your freedom. But linux is better for getting more folks onto the freedom ladder. Linux however, isn’t the end goal: GNU is. If you don’t know what that means, congrats, you’re part of the problem.

GNU has their own kernel, called linux-libre, which follows the same set of principles as Hurd. It won’t function 100% on modern OEM hardware but its important as message towards freedom.

I use a blobbed kernel one if my machines, but I also have a librebooted debian thinkpad. I am intensely interested in a fully free OS, this is why i seem stubborn to those who don’t even keep what Im saying in mind.

My x220 uses intel microcode, that is nonfree software. However, I was convinced by the founder of libreboot’s (Leah Rowe) extensive writing to make it so. Im not completely stubborn, but Im also not careless.

Nothing is holding hurd back. Debian and GNU Guix both ship hurd. The world has failed hurd instead.

Hurd will never accept firmware blobs or proprietary drivers. Thus, it will not work on OEMs who use those tactics for their machines. You are still able to install hurd in a VM as those have libre standards.

This is true for all GNU packages, not just hurd.