“Hey, man, is that GNU/Linux on your computer?”, “Yes.”, “Great, but I use Microsoft Windows.” You get the idea. A “heavy” academic exchange like that would sound comical, to say the least. And that’s exactly the point of this article. One of the long-running debates in the Linux ecosystem: whether the system should be called GNU/Linux or simply Linux.
First, let’s start with the dry technical facts, which you’ve probably heard a hundred times already, but they’re still worth mentioning here. Strictly speaking, Linux refers only to a single component of the operating system, namely the kernel written by Linus Torvalds. That’s it. It’s no coincidence that, if you’ve noticed, most distributions name their kernel packages accordingly, following conventions like linux-6.18.2.x64.
Continuing on the technical side, I’ll readily admit that the term GNU/Linux often does a better job of describing the operating system in technical, historical, and philosophical terms. It reflects the reality of a complete system built largely from components created by the GNU Project, such as compilers, core utilities, shells, libraries, and build tools, all working together with the Linux kernel to form a usable operating system.
Because it’s worth repeating: on its own, the Linux kernel is just one piece of software. Without the surrounding tools that send it instructions and make sense of its output, it would be of no practical use to anyone. But somewhere here, we begin to reach the limits of a strictly technical perspective and step into everyday use. Before doing that, though, it’s only fair to lay out some of the arguments made by purists who insist that the term GNU/Linux should be used.
First, beyond the technical arguments mentioned above, they emphasize the attribution argument. Purists argue that naming matters because it assigns credit. Using GNU/Linux explicitly acknowledges GNU’s foundational role and avoids attributing the entire system solely to the kernel. As you can guess, this view is closely associated with Richard Stallman, who has argued for decades that language shapes how history is remembered.
Second, there are the philosophical arguments. GNU was created as part of the Free Software movement, which emphasizes user freedoms as an ethical issue. Purists worry that saying only Linux weakens the message and shifts focus from software freedom to a more neutral or commercial understanding of the system. Whether that’s actually true is more a matter of personal opinion than an established fact.
However, there are situations where calling certain distributions GNU/Linux is not just questionable, but plainly inaccurate. For example, Alpine Linux cannot be accurately called GNU/Linux because it just does not use GNU as its userland. It’s built around musl instead of glibc, and relies heavily on BusyBox rather than GNU Coreutils. So, I guess purists turn to it with MUSL/Linux?
And what about Chimera Linux, which makes the naming issue even clearer. If Alpine challenges the idea that everything is GNU/Linux, Chimera outright breaks it. It is explicitly designed as a non-GNU Linux system. It uses the Linux kernel, but replaces the traditional GNU stack almost entirely, betting on LLVM/Clang. That’s right, the one used on FreeBSD. So, I suppose it’s some kind of BSD/Linux.
I could go on with examples, but I think the point is clear. And last, but certainly not least, outside a small group of purists, the term Linux is widely accepted worldwide as the name of the operating system built around the Linux kernel. You’ll hear it used both in everyday conversations with friends and on the stages of major international conferences.
And no, calling it simply Linux doesn’t diminish the GNU Project’s role in any way. It’s just following the widely accepted convention. Of course, there will always be people ready to argue (sometimes quite heatedly) that GNU/Linux is the correct name. But taking things to unnecessary extremes, as in this case, has never led to anything good.
So I jumped on the Linux bandwagon, slapped a GNU sticker on it, and left it at that, without forcing it on the people around me. I’m pretty sure that insisting on GNU/Linux doesn’t strengthen your argument or make you sound more knowledgeable. If anything, I’d argue it does the opposite.
What existed before, the egg or the chicken? The egg! The egg appeared roughly 320 Millions of years ago vs 100 Millions years for birds. Wait, that was not a chicken egg yet… But it was an egg! It is probable one of the volatiles born from some egg evolved and laid a chicken egg.
OK our egg is GNU C (GNU compiler gcc, GNU Assembler as, GNU Linker ld, GNU make) with what Linus Thorvald developped his chicken (I should say his penguin) the linux kernel since first version 0.01 the 8th of january 1992 on a minix computer (his pc used an Intel 80386 CPU).
It was decided to use Linux instead of the Hurd kernel still in development then (the Hurd project started in 1991, there was some Mach 3.0 micro kernel, the first prototypes fs proc etc were already there in 1992-1994, but hurd v0.0 was only publicly published in 1996).
IMHO any distro using GNU stuff and by default not using 3rd party proprietary opaque undocumented blob or closed source software should be called GNU/Linux to underline it is free like freedom. It helps users about to pick an Operating System to understand things and make an informed choice.
Any distro not using GNU call it whatever but it is not about dumb commercial stuff logo, it is about worldview, the free sofware movement history must be passed on and survive.
Those who didn’t manage to kill the FSF with all kinds of trouble and lawfare are now attempting to dilute/replace each software component till oblivion and/or sweep it under the rug.
The GNU goal and philosophy is to provide software freedom a whole beneficial FLOSS development that could fit very well with open hardware in a free ecosystem.
It shall be sought and thus the philosophy and the message shall not be forgotten.
In order to do that we can perpetuate it in everday language.
It costed years when not almost their whole life of advocacy for developers to provide us all that goodness,
we can take 1 second to properly pronounce GNU.
There are Linux versions that aren’t using GNU. Take Android, it doesn’t use glibc or much else from GNU. Android has its own libc so could call it Bionic/Linux.
The point is that most Linux distros make use of GNU software and using that is just a more precise way of saying what it is.
Linux.
For simplicity.
The problem sometimes in the Linux world is the nerdy and abstract naming of software. Some apps are named in a way that looks like some obscure 1970’s black and white stuff. Gnu/Linux is one of these. Then, whether old or new, the users don’t really care about the GNU part or whatever detail. Can I use it daily with no hardware problem, no crash and do all my use cases with it? That’s a much more relevant question than GNU/Linux or Linux.
Simplicity doesn’t mean either that it has to be so generic it’s completely dumb. Like Gnome Files? What files? It doesn’t even tell you it’s a file manager or a file explorer (which is the Windows name, a simple yet explicit one), so there is no added value there, then if every DE calls it Files, we get even more confusion. KDE files, XFCE Files, Cosmic Files, then it gets confusing. It’s too dumbed down. Another thing Gnome fails at.
GNU/Linux is just a weird concept to people, the simple fact this article exists shows that it is confusing.
For me, it’s the Linux world, Linux for short. With a penguin, like the Apple or the window of Microsoft. Keep it simple yet slightly original (therefore easy to distinguish). It’s easier to grasp for everyone.
I don’t think it’s necessary to use ANYTHING else naming it than just Linux.
First of all because of distros NOT using GNU, and then other projects like systemd not pushing their agenda like GNU project does.
I like GNU, I use it on my Arch and also some of it on my Alpine Linux setups (bash).
Should I call my Arch Linux/GNU/systemd/KDE? Or my Alpine Linux/musl/open-rc/GNU/Xfce?
That’s just stupid. For me it was always just Linux, and I don’t think that undermines anyone’s efforts calling it that way.
We w www ww w bush and up a un peu de choses mais je n’ai jamais été un succès bffor on est www le’accorwwd que n ush iwwww wee w bush is wee ws
It’s a personal opinion (mine), obviously.
But for me, it has always been Linux.
Yes, I acknowledge that all this tools / utilities from the GNU project were used in its creation.
But…..plenty of other non-GNU software has to be used for Linux to actually do anything useful. And you don’t see anybody naming Linux after it.
Nautilus/Linux, anyone?
Wayland/Linux, anyone?
Gnome/Linux, anyone?
Systemd/Linux, anyone?
Hell, even in the world of Windows
C/Windows?
C++ Windows?
C#/Windows?
Rust, Assembly/Windows?
Besides, the people that create the thing get to name it. Like it, or not.
Linus Torvalds doesn’t call it GNU/Linux
The Distros people don’t call their Distro GNU / Whatever (well, Debian did in the past)
If people care so much I think Linux/gnu would be more correct, kernel before the userland.
And do those same people say Toybox/Android? And what would you call something like Alpine Linux (busybox/Linux?), or Chimera OS (FreeBSD/Linux?)? Or Ubuntu running uutils?
Here’s one people will love, systemd/Linux 😆
This is not about arguments. In my opinion it’s about giving credit to where this symbiosis started.
The Linux Kernel can’t be used without the rest of the OS
The GNU project could never get to where it is today without the Linux kernel.
Therefore this symbiosis is called GNU/Linux to indicate for both projects its significance to each other.
Yes GNU/Linux is turned into Linux for simplicity’s sake but so do many more brands. Check this out:
Mercedes-Benz -> Mercedes (even though Karl Benz contributed lots of innovations).
Fiat/Ferrari (or Ferrari/Fiat) -> Ferrari, since it got bought by FIAT
HP -> Hewllett Packard, but can also be a reference to HP Sauce, so without context, which one is it?
Clarification is necessary to denote 2 entities forming one greater one. Shortening of the GNU/Linux name creates ambiguity and only refers to the overall OS but does not credit where this creation comes from. And THAT is the important part.
Trisquel is GNU/Linux, Devuan is GNU+Linux, while Ubuntu is probably Linux/GNU.
😉
I can see both sides of the argument and I am in between. For me, i recognize that what GNU/Linux signifies is an ideal or milestone that i can choose to aspire towards in my personal daily life, but that to respect those same ideals, to not impose that upon others; and I see where it is just easier to say Linux and it applies to more and more distributions that do not use GNU utilities as the foundation – i am a bit of a political refugee because I find it all so divisive, and isolating, when really, investing in any sort of thing is really just for myself and that I do not need the support, loyalty, or approval of others, so I dont need to impose those beliefs or pound my chest to others on it. I can just live it as much as I can for my own satisfaction.