I’m not trying to attack him, but this is pretty funny.
Context: 11 days ago DT released a video where he called out the people who refer to Linux distributions as “Linux” as opposed to “GNU/Linux”. Today he released a video where he did exactly that.
Indeed. “Linux” now means “literally Linux, the kernel” and also “an operating system that uses Linux as the kernel”. Kind of like how people say they use “Windows” but they mean that they use “Windows 11”.
The only reason saying “GNU/Linux” helps is if you want to give credit to GNU. It doesn’t add clarity to anything. Which is warranted, but also, what if I forked GNU and relabeled it as linux-tools. I believe that’s within my right, isn’t it? To fork and copy things.
It’s kinda odd to be like “copyright is bad, the works should be free, and just pass around naturally!” … “but also make sure I get credit”
deleted by creator
Busybox/Linux
I’ve come to realize that semantics are vastly more important than many of us realize.
Saying GNU/Linux isn’t about giving credit to the GNU Project so much as it is about spreading the message that GNU represents. GNU represents a cooperative, collaborative philosophy diametrically opposed to the oppressive, exploitative capitalist ideals championed by today’s ruling class. By using “GNU” we remind users that the freedom we enjoy with our computing today was made possible, not by a kernel, but by the ideals of community and camaraderie embedded into our software by way of the GPL.
I don’t see anything antithetical about anyone wanting to share their work while at the same time wanting to be credited for it. On the contrary, most copyright regimes have specific carve outs for moral rights such as attribution. Even the most liberal of the creative commons license options includes an attribution requirement. That said, it isn’t just within your right to rename things you fork, it may be a requirement. For reference just think back to the controversy surrounding IceWeasel.
Saying GNU/Linux does not give that message to 99% of people though. If I say that the SteamDeck actually runs on GNU/Linux to a normie gamer, they are more likely to be like “ok, that sounds confusing I’ll stick to xbox”. And anyone within the community already gets it. We all know the meme, we all get it. Semantics goes both ways. Sometimes you win hearts and minds, and sometimes you just annoy people who don’t care.
And in the name of semantics, “attribution” and “credit” are not the same. I’m obligated to say IceWeasel, or as I’ve taken to calling it, “The libre Firefox fork known as IceWeasel”… It’s important to call it by the full name every time, because Firefox is really the basis of 99.9% of the code in the repo. The repo gives full attribution to firefox and mozilla, but when we refer to it, we never actually give credit to the original.
And since we don’t need to call out the original if we fork something, if I fork GNU-utils and call it linux-OS-utils. And then build on my own distro, would that be a fully Linux OS? Even though its functionally and codewise identical to a “GNU/Linux” distro?
To me the credit thing is less about “oh they made it so they deserve the credit”, and more about spreading word about the free software movement. Software freedom is good, and GNU is all about software freedom, but people won’t find that by searching for “Linux”