|Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GNU article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|GNU Enterprise was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 December 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into GNU. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 27, 2004, September 27, 2006, September 27, 2008, September 27, 2012, September 27, 2015, and September 27, 2020.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
I wouldn't call it an operating system
GNU's most important task is to provide open source versions of the UNIX command line tools. There is some other software under the GNU umbrella as well, such as GNOME. But it's still an exaggeration to call GNU an operating system. It's more like a collection of some essential components for an operating system. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here on Wikipedia we add content based on verfiable reliable non-primary sources. What should be in the article, if it can be backed up by such sources, is all of the points-of-views of what GNU is, including the one you express here. — Lentower (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- GNU certainly is not a fully functional operating system on its own, so it might be a bit misleading to call it such. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- How salty. "GNU advocate" here. Ever heard of the Debian GNU/Hurd? That's a fully functioning albeit experimental operating system. If by "won", you mean "every layperson calls Linux a 'fully functional operating system'" even though a minimal fully functioning "Linux" instance (one that can compile and build itself from source) contains more code written by the GNU Project than by Linus (and the kernel team)" (and don't give me crap about how glibc and the coreutils can be replaced, cause the gcc sure can't, and anyway "Linux" itself can be readily replaced by kfreebsd) then you're right. If by "won" you mean "the most successful popularizers of 'Linux' don't give a fuck about freedom and consider 'open source' a profitable buzzword", then you're right again. And if by "won" you mean "people think a blobby monolithic kernel is the height of efficiency and modularity" you're right a third time. So hooray for the successful propagation of an invidious and ultimately harmful lie!
- That being said, if your intent was to assert that "Linux has defeated GNU and free software", you are mistaken. The greatest bastion of support for the GNU Project and its ideals is (by far) the "Linux" community itself.
- Thanks for giving me an excuse to rant, annonie.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Friendly reminder here: WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- With Richard Stallman out of the way, GNU is finally dead. I wonder how long it'll take Wikipedia to acknowledge it.184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The whole operating system project is the GNU project. Please see the GNU/Linux naming controversy. Linux is just one of the kernels of the GNU operating system. The Linux kernel became this big only after it was freed to GPL licence and made a part of the whole operating system. Hurd is another kernel of the operating system. How can all these facts be ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- See below. GNU is not an operating system, as it was never completed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am using GNU Operating System with the Linux kernel in my laptop, and Android Operating System with the Linux kernel in my phone. HURD is a kernel, just like Linux. HURD, Linux are not Operating Systems.
gzip, 7zip, compress registered trade names or trade marks
GNU compress look so good on a GUI but for legal reasons had to be renamed. Another promising packer software name would be gnu Densify.
GNU is not an operating system; GNU is not GNU Hurd
GNU is the Operting System on which Linux Kernel is based. "Argumentum ad populum" is not Consensus.
GNU is an operating system
As well as an extensive collection of software (because that's what operating systems are), the two statements are compatible and true according to usage and citeable literature. This was clear and well-referenced by reliable sources in previous versions of the article, which I argue should be restored to replace this mess. It wouldn't surprise me if this mess turned out to be the work of sponsored editing and anti-GNU evangelizers, because it pretty much lingers on vandalistic lines.
Yes, GNU is an experimental OS, that is, when using GNU's own kernel "Hurd" instead of Linux. That also used to be well-referenced in the article. But an experimental OS is still an OS. If you believe this is wrong, go correct the articles for Darwin, ReactOS, TempleOS, Plan 9, etc; all of which are experimental or never see the production light, serving instead as component providers for other systems (macOS, Inferno). Actually, per Wikipedia's own policies (e.g. Wikipedia:NPOV), all major views on a subject should be proportionally represented on the article, starting from the lead paragraph. Therefore, current versions are a violation of community standards. I think editors like User:Ahunt are smart enough to understand this and come fix their own mistakes. --isacdaavid 18:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)