Why Linux is portrayed as a Penguin?

  • Lettuce eat lettuce
    82•2 years ago

    The penguin’s name is “Tux” and he’s the official Linux mascot.

    I think Linus Torvalds picked it a long time ago, he said he wanted something that was non-threatening, so hence the penguin lol.

    The debate about Linux vs GNU/Linux imo, is one of the stupidest and pedantic debates I’ve ever heard. Maybe it mattered 30+ years ago when things were much less developed and only hardcore nerds and programmers used it, but now days it’s only important to grognards and neckbeards.

    Hot take, but it’s like those pretentious music enthusiasts that will argue about what precise genre an artist fits into. “I would say they are post-progressive indie skitzo-pop. No way! They are clearly more neo-grunge sca-punk with post-rock elements” who cares?? Have your ultra-precise categories in your personal music collection all you want, but acting like it’s based on some hardcore objective truths of the universe is stupid.

    Nobody is confused when I say I run Linux as my OS. Actually, people do get confused but it’s not because of GNU/Linux, it’s because they haven’t ever heard of Linux and thought that Windows and MacOS were the only 2 OSes for computers.

    If somebody genuinely pulled an “um, actually” on me for saying Linux vs GNU/Linux, I would scream laugh loudly and then change the subject.

    • @corvus@lemmy.ml
      25•2 years ago

      It’s not unusual to see people talking about android users being Linux users “because android is Linux too” clearly not understanding the difference between Linux the OS, i.e. GNU/Linux, and Linux the kernel. So it’s useful when you have to make such a distinction.

        • @phx@lemmy.ca
          2•2 years ago

          Alpine or PostmarketOS works for older stuff. Some others will run Ubuntu as well.

          Instead of “Linux on [phone]” try using Debian/Ubuntu or one of the mobile-targeting distros as a keyword

          • @Patch@feddit.uk
            6•2 years ago

            Alpine

            Alpine is also arguably not “GNU/Linux”, as it doesn’t use GNU Core Utils or glibc. But I don’t know anyone who would suggest that Alpine isn’t “proper Linux”.

      • @heartsofwar@lemmy.world
        4•2 years ago

        I’m about to step in it…

        There is no GNU/Linux OS; the FSF has never defined a base that demonstrates the GNU/Linux OS. All the FSF has done is loosely define guidelines that basically allows them to endorse any 100% free (libre), self-hosted, distribution that supports a 100% copy left license and does not promote in any way or auto install non-free or non-open software by default.

        Unfortunately for them this means that 99.99% of the Linux distributions out there do not qualify as GNU/Linux, even the ones like Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu that did adopt the GNU/Linux name scheme, because they all host, promote, or allow users access to non-free software in some way.

        Furthermore, here’s the real kicker, if someone decides to take one of the endorsed GNU/Linux distributions and modify it to run FISH instead of BASH, you would now have a GNU/Linux distribution that was incompatible with other GNU/Linux distributions but still identifiable as GNU/Linux.

        This is why FSF and their “GNU/Linux” scheme is just a stupid R. Stallman political stunt to make his life’s pursuit relevant; the movement tries to benefit from everyone else’s work without actually accomplishing the one thing they need to do which is to actually define what packages, versions, implementations are GNU/Linux.

        Ultimately what I am saying is that defining the guidelines is only half the solution; the other half is the FSF needs to define and maintain their own LSB (Linux Standard Base)

        • @corvus@lemmy.ml
          2•2 years ago

          Unfortunately for them this means that 99.99% of the Linux distributions out there do not qualify as >GNU/Linux, even the ones like Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu that did adopt the GNU/Linux name >scheme, because they all host, promote, or allow users access to non-free software in some way.

          You are totally confused. In words of R. Stallman:

          “The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux”.

          “Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called “distros”). Most of them include nonfree programs”.

          https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

    • @herrvogel@lemmy.world
      9•2 years ago

      I recently found myself forced to give a shit, when one of our projects started doing weird shit after switching to an Alpine-based docker image.

  • @heartsofwar@lemmy.world
    31•2 years ago

    First gripe: Linux refers to the kernel only. Its not wrong to say, “I run Linux”, but that is very broad. For example, Android runs Linux too, but it is widely accepted that Android has deviated greatly from the Linux kernel base; something Google is slowly, some-what trying to resolve.

    Second gripe: GNU/Linux was a phrase R. Stallman wanted to use after his GNU OS idea continued to see / experience delays, but the GNU tools were individually adopting popularity with other OSs. In my opinion, it was / is his way of trying to make his political choices as a staunch FSF (Free (libre) Software Foundation) advocate matter. The bottom line is that when you say “GNU/Linux” you might be qualifying that the system runs GNU tools on top of a Linux kernel, but where does it end? Today, you could just as easily try to say that “GNOME/Wayland/Systemd/GNU/Linux” is not the same as “GNOME/XOrg/sysvinit/GNU/Linux” or “KDE/Wayland/upstart/GNU/Linux”, etc. It is a little more nuanced than that as the GNU tools do tend to define slightly more compatibility due to the nature of encompassing some of the lowest level user tools, but the example is valid and it highlights how the nature of open source software is sort-of troublesome to apply differentiating labels above the kernel

    Third, Torvalds has gone on record many times stating that he doesn’t really see the appeal of the “GNU/Linux” scheme, but he does understand why some people think it is important.

    Last, my personal opinion is I say, “I run Fedora”, and if someone asks what that is, “its a Linux based general Operating System alternative to Windows”

  • t0m5k1
    20•2 years ago

    Here we go. …

    Linux is the kernel.

    Gnu refers to the userland tools.

    Many say gnu no longer really applies as the userland tools are provided by more than GNU’s specific set.

      • @SomeBoyo@feddit.de
        2•2 years ago

        “I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!”

        • @Gork@lemm.ee
          4•2 years ago

          No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag. permalinkembedsavereportgive goldreply

            • @kadu@lemmy.world
              2•2 years ago

              You’re denying tomato’s important components. I would appreciate it if you called it “Tomato Sauce/GNU/Linux/Pasta” naturally Tomato should come first as it sits on top of everything else, and in sheer amount of color, is more visible.

  • @grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18•2 years ago

    What’s better is GNU. IDGAF if the kernel is Linux, BSD, or HURD as long as my hardware works.

    • Rancid
      2•2 years ago

      Can I ask why you prefer copyleft? I’m a big fan of permissive stuff.

  • Joliflower
    15•2 years ago

    Both. Richard and Linux paved the way for what all FOSS and the world currently is

    • rurutheguru
      11•2 years ago

      According to one alternative posted in the past by a member of the Furry community?

      But yeah, you’re wrong. Linux is predominantly portrayed by a penguin mascot, Tux. Some distros are named after penguin species too (Gentoo for example)

        • rurutheguru
          1•2 years ago

          I think for obvious reasons, hahaha. Tux still seems like a nornal animal-penguin. Not too many people like anthropomorphised animal characters, especially if they suddenly wear clothes and walk on their hind legs. Just gives of Disney-esque furry vibes.

      • @kboy101222@lemm.ee
        2•2 years ago

        Oh THATS why it’s called Gentoo!

        I knew it was a penguin and I knew about the distro, but I never put the two together

  • @PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    9•2 years ago

    Linux/GNU. GNU would never have been widely adopted anywhere without the Linux kernel. Plus, Linux can be made to run with alternatives to GNU. Putting GNU first is putting the cart before the horse.

    • franpoli
      10•2 years ago

      Actually it might be the opposite, without the GNU initiative, Linus may not have found any interest in developing the Linux kernel. Without the GPL license, the efforts of the GNU community would not have been spent on Linux.