Linux or GNU / Linux, a debate that never seems to end

To get the term "Gnu / Linux" becomes wrong since the name "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds (yes, Linux is a proprietary name coming from Linus Torvalds to hold its rights) and to use the name Linux in " GNU / Linux ", the FSF would have to seek express permission from Linus Torvalds for this use as they did and do Red Hat, SuSE, IBM, Debian, Gentoo, Funtoo, Arch, Ubuntu and all . If there is no authorization from Linus Torvalds, then there is a breach of the law.

FSF's biggest claim is the use of its programs on Linux (which FSF-created licenses do not provide for the obligation to attach the GNU name to any and all programs developed by institutions or companies that make use of their software stack on your private or public projects). Beyond the law, the claim to use GNU programs does not become a relevant argument since there are not only GNU programs on Linux (as most those who defend iron and fire GNU believe to be).

Most of the programs on Linux are from Linux itself (as I showed in the videos and articles four packages that have a non-GNU command set, procps, netkit and iputils; which are all Linux and GNU commands. And if we dig deeper into the system, we'll find a lot more stuff than not just GNU). Without using these packages it becomes impossible to even install the operating system or even connect to internet. These mentioned programs, if not just Linux itself, are designed for use on Linux (not GNU); which make them proper for Linux (not for GNU).

What we should also have is that GNU programs are likely to be replaced if the Linux community finds it interesting. There is no mandatory link between the two projects. And let's face it, as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, the name "GNU / Linux" is too complicated for a brand and becomes too confusing for new Linux users. It causes them to waste too much time learning things that become unnecessary and useless. They have become confusing in the past and continue to be today.

I think the biggest problem when referring to the name is that for today's standards of what is considered an operating system not even the junction of the Linux kernel and its tools in a system with GNU tools like Bash or others, abstract the work thousands more from people who make software that is part of what we call distribution, such as the interfaces and software that the average user actually has contact with, such as KDE Plasma and the technologies needed to develop it.

What groups together systems like Chrome OS, Android, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, Gentoo, SUSE, Slackware and many others, as well as IoT devices, watches, and others under the same family of systems Kernel Linux and its intrinsic tools , and not the GNU software that is often not even present, unlike Linux.

Some even say that even simplifying systems by calling them "Linux" is a misconception too, since the name of the system Chrome OS, Ubuntu, Linux Mint and so on, lives up to the software bundle that encompasses tools that go a long way. In addition to the Linux kernel and GNU tools, if we look at them, they represent a very small percentage of the size of system images. Remember, being licensed in GPL does not make it "GNU", that would be the same as any software that uses the Mozilla license was actually Mozilla, which makes no sense at all.

What we call the distribution of many very free software, usually free, which in quantity is not only GNU, nor Linux, but together they form a system that people today can really use, such as Debian, which I usually distribute. Linux kernel and GNU tools around the system (as well as so many others) and it's so modular that you can use even other Kernels, other than Linux, and you can use other Shell tools, compilers and more, than in GNU, ie on GNU / Linux Debian, Debian. So much so that the name was changed a few years ago to avoid this misconception and not to limit Debian to Linux and GNU only.

This can also be considered a problem in order of importance. Use a little of your imagination.

Imagine that you, on one side of the world develops a new engine for a car, along with the basic operating comments of the same. On the other side of the world there is someone who was looking to make a complete car, but only had some basic tools for the system, such as steering wheel, gearbox, doors, seats, etc.

Would it be correct for this person to use her name on the mark of all cars that run on her engine and use her steering wheel, seats and gearbox? At first glance you may even be in doubt, the issue is that to make the car the way we see it today, many other components, headlights, wheels, upholstery, airbag, sound, etc. are still needed. So wouldn't it be as fair as giving credit to all the people who created these other items? However you do not see cars that display on your behalf the brands of the manufacturers of each component or the technology that was used to make them.