nUbee

And that's a tragedy because that convenience of pronunciation comes with the cost of losing credit for the group that started the whole thing. Because only "Linux" is used, many people think Linus Torvalds developed/invented the entire operating system.

Hook and loop being called Velcro doesn't hurt Velcro the same way because they still have all the credit for making it. The only problem they face is losing a trademark.

If I'm not mistaken, you're talking about distributions. When I write 'operating system', I'm referring to a collection of programs that provide a set of utility for a user, such as file manipulation, the ability to compile other programs, etc. Distributions expand on that functionality by configuring everything, providing other programs, and methods to install more. But they mostly build off a common framework, the operating system. Linux is a component of that system that provides the framework. Should it get all the credit for doing so? Personally, I don't think so.

I understand distributions (Debian, Arch, etc.) are what users will use. But those distributions have a foundation to build off of (that's what I'm referring to when I say OS), and that foundation most distributions use is GNU and Linux.

GNU came first, and the final piece of the missing puzzle was Linux. Adding in Linux shouldn't overshadow all the incredible work the GNU project took over 7 years to create.

Android is a different issue, although it certainly puts a hole in the logic of calling the desktop OS Linux. "[Android] contains Linux, but it isn't Linux."

It would seem that GNU/Linux or Linux (whatever the user-accessing operating system is called) is the only OS that must mention its kernel. No one calls Windows the NT operating system, nor does anyone call Mac OS the Darwin operating system. So why should Linux be the exception?

When I think of GNU, I think of a project that had a very particular goal in mind: build an operating system that replaces Unix with entirely free software. The project got nearly all the way there, but before they got a usable kernel working, Torvalds licensed his kernel with the GPL. With the Linux kernel combined with GNU, we have an OS the GNU project set out to create. So why should Torvalds get all the credit? Without calling the OS GNU, most people don't even know how or why it came to be.

I could see a valid argument to just simply call the OS GNU. It was the name the original team gave the project to have a fully functional OS made with entirely free software. True, Torvalds didn't write Linux for GNU, but neither did the X Window System. A Kernel is essential for operation though, so I can see why the name GNU/Linux was proposed.

When I think of Copyleft licenses, I just think of it as "Use this program as you see fit, but if you share/redistribute it, you may not add any restrictions to it."

I don't understand why there are communities that hate GPL so much. It is such a powerful license that practically guarantees that the program will be free for any who wants it, it just won't allow someone to add restrictions to it.

I've heard arguments against the GPL like: "It's too restrictive!" Only if you want your program to be muddled with any kind of program that doesn't respect freedom. Saying the GPL is too restrictive to developers is like saying the 13th amendment of the US Constitution is too restrictive to slave owners.

"One damn minute, admiral!"

I'd continue working if it meant I could afford more luxury in life.

"This place has got everything!"

Patent trolling.

Maybe things have changed since I've last tried it (10 years or so), but I thought Fedora Rawhide was at the most bleeding edge of experimental packages.