• rambaroo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The argument would be that on Linux, the majority of user-facing interactions are with GNU software, not the kernel.

    Also, without GNU, Linux probably wouldn’t even exist, at last not in its current form. GNU was already a mature toolchain when Linus started working on Linux. So it’s all well and good to point out that Linux can get pulled out and combined with other toolchain, but you can say the same with GNU. It’s out there running with BSD and Darwin. And BSD might not have a ton of direct users, but it’s extremely important for servers.

    You don’t need Linux to run a free operating system, which was the goal of GNU, it really doesn’t matter that Hurd was never completed. The goal was achieved so there hasn’t been much incentive to develop Hurd.

    I personally don’t care what people call it, but I do think GNU deserves the recognition. Especially because some of their tools are extremely important, like gcc. Linux might not exist if gnu hadn’t provided a functional toolset for an operating system. Hell if it wasn’t for GNU, we might not have a free OS at all.

    • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Without GNU, we’d probably be using variants of FreeBSD or similar, possibly even porting that toolchain to run on Linux kernel… I mean, their contribution was important, but so were a lot of other people and projects