Talk:GNU

GNU is the Operting System on which Linux Kernel is based. "Argumentum ad populum" is not Consensus.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was no consensus when the former discussion is forcefully closed. Normal individuals can not argue with a large number of addresses hired by a PR agency. I can see that another user had already disproved the arguments which says that GNU is not an OS. Please come up with any arguments which prove that GNU is not an OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.89.85 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That is no way to start a new consensus discussion. First the discussion had closed after it ended with a consensus. It was closed, "not forcfully" (I think you mean "forcibly") but due to to no further discussion over a lengthy period of time, which is how all discussions normally end. And secondly you start off with a bad faith accusation that somehow anyone you disagree with are somehow "hired by a PR agency". As far as that accusation goes you need to provide some sort of proof of that conspiracy theory or else start by withdrawing it and apologizing. Why would any "PR agency" care about this issue, which one and whom did they hire?

As far as your demand, "Please come up with any arguments which prove that GNU is not an OS". The editors working on this page already have a consensus here. That is how Wikipedia works, in Latin or in English. Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS for the details. The onus is on you, in re-opening the discussion, to prove your case, not for anyone else to disprove it. You need to start by presenting third party sources that support what you are saying. You can note that the GNU Foundation and the FSF are not third parties.

You can also note that editing warring against consensus to impose your desired wording without first gaining a new consensus will only get you blocked. First make a cogent and persuasive argument and then gain a new consensus.

You may also want to to have a read of WP:DEADHORSE before you start. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree The IP is correct. GNU is a full-fledged, and fully functional operating system and HURD is its kernel. The HURD page says this: "GNU Hurd is the multiserver microkernel written as part of GNU". Just because people can swap its official kernel for another – more developed and popular – one (Linux), it doesn’t mean GNU doesn’t have a kernel.

Therefore, the following comment written by User:Korn doesn’t make any sense, actually it sounds like an unsourced (I’m not sure whether memes are RS, you may want to double check that lol) personal opinion: "But the GNU software collection is by itself not capable of operating computer hardware unless combined with an operating system/kernel. If Hurd is included, this threshold is reached, but it seems universally accepted that the GNU entity does not necessarily include Hurd, as can be seen from the GNU/Linux meme.".

I see no consensus in the discussion above. specially because User:Psychonaut raised concerns that weren't properly addressed, but simply ignored. More importantly, User:Ahunt shouldn’t have, by any means, prematurely closed the discussion by themselves, as a highly involved party. - Daveout(talk) 17:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Striking overstatement. - Daveout(talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the arguments against usage of third party software is already addressed. I shall ask my roommate to address the only remaining argument, which says that FSF is not a third party which endorsed this view. Hopefully he will respond to that argument. As far as I understand, GNU OS can be GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd or GNU with any kernel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.80.253 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. Some here say that the GNU OS was never finished (or that its kernel was never finished), others say that *maybe* it *could* be an OS if it had a kernel to manage resources and run programs;

Meanwhile, in the HURD's article (aka GNU's never materialized kernel), we have a screenshot of HURD running a Window Manager and a Web Browser.

Yes, that distro is called Debian HURD, but let me ask you this: We say that Debian is a GNU\Linux distro, but what is left when we take that linux off ? That's right, it is pure GNU. - Daveout(talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is nice to see the GNU Project cavalry arrive here all at once. Just to be clear though, you are here to overturn an existing consensus that was established two months ago. So far all you have done it rehash the old arguments that were made in the last discussion and that were rebutted. I would suggest you read the last debate in detail to see where new arguments can be established. To create a new consensus here you need to make persuasive arguments that reliable, third party sources agree with your position. You can note that this would be sources like academic journals, tech media, general media, and so on, in other words, not organizations started by Richard Stallman to promote the GNU project, like the GNU Project itself or the FSF. These are first party sources, in the same way that Ford Motors would be a first party on the merits of the Ford Mustang. So far you have presented no new references and no new or persuasive arguments. I am not going to get into any minutia debates here on your loudly-stated opinions and I doubt other editors watching this page will, either. Like the last one, this discussion will be closed once debate has ended and no new posts are made for five days or so. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about the sources. Primary sources are acceptable in some cases, but this is not one of them. We need sources other than Stallman, FSF, or GNU project. Likewise, we also need sources (not memes) unequivocally stating that GNU is not an operating system. Sources stating that GNU is a "collection of software" do not lead to that conclusion (as most operating system are a collection of software). That being said, apparently there aren’t many good, independent sources calling it an OS, (we can find some so-so sources here and there tho).

Alternatively, we could include a line saying something like "GNU's kernel never left the early-development stage."

(I see no consensus in the discussions above and please do not rush to close discussions when others are disagreeing with you, things like this never look good). - Daveout(talk) 18:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I will quote myself from the previous consensus: I think the most authoritative ref is the GNU Project itself which says The Hurd, together with the GNU Mach microkernel, the GNU C Library and the other GNU and non-GNU programs in the GNU system, provide a rather complete and usable operating system today. It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. However, it should be a good base for further development and non-critical application usage. Despite the rosy language, clearly is an admission that it is not ready for use.

You won't find a ref that says something isn't something. To extend my last analogy, a Ford Mustang is not a space ship, but I guarantee you can't find a WP:RS that says that.

To address your previous claim "We say that Debian is a GNU\Linux distro, but what is left when take that linux off ? That's right, it is pure GNU." Actually a typical Linux distribution is 8% GNU. ref - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You sure have a very creative way of interpreting things. The way you turn a "rather complete and usable operating system today" into an "admission that it is not ready for use". Being feature-rich, stable and polished aren't the criteria that define OS's. A buggy OS is still an OS. As User:Korn said: An OS manages resources and runs other programs. GNU is capable of doing those things all by itself. You provided no evidence of the contrary. If someone claims that Hurd isn't considered part of GNU, I'm sorry but we'll need sources in order to consider that very odd claim.

Somebody above asked: "If it is really an OS, where can I get it?". At Hurd's webpage you can find LiveCD images and system images for Qemu and VirtualBox, for example. Note that Hurd presents itself as part of the GNU project and says that its mission is to create a Kernel for the GNU OS.

Regarding the Debian\Ubuntu composition thing, I was referring to the base system: As in "when you take Linux out of GNU\Linux, what is left is GNU". I obviously wasn't referring to apps like Firefox. (and I really thought that I wouldn’t need to explain this). Almost in the same way we call ubuntu "linux", even though only 9% of it is actual linux.

Unfortunately, I think we've reached a stalemate, and a broader RfC should be considered in order to settle this. (but I really hope you’ll reconsider, and leave this decade-old version as it now stands). - Daveout(talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a few editors watching this page, so give it a few days to allow people to respond. You can note if this process does not create a new consensus then the previous consensus stands. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Question: There was some self-admitted off-wiki canvassing going on so it's a bit hard to tell which IP is who or is a different editor. The primary source, [1] says that GNU is an operating system, but it's also calling it GNU/Linux, which is a whole different rabbit hole but that page is calling Parabola GNU/Linux-libre and other distros GNU, not Linux (or even GNU/Linux). This is their example of the GNU operating system, which is Linux, which they are calling GNU. Are there any reliable, third party sources that can show that GNU is an operating system, and not just another name for GNU/Linux or GNU/HURD? The article's subject at the moment appears to be the GNU packages and the attempt to create a GNU OS, which was superseded by Linux. Looking through the discussion and the sources given, I'm not seeing anything supporting the idea that GNU is an operating system and not a collection of tools that can be part of an operating system. - Aoidh (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The source you linked above says this: GNU is typically used with a kernel called Linux. This combination is the GNU/Linux operating system. GNU/Linux is used by millions, though many call it “Linux” by mistake. GNU's own kernel, The Hurd, was started in 1990 (before Linux was started). GNU and GNU\Hurd are the same thing (as Hurd is part of GNU). Sometimes ppl write it like that in order to diffentiate it from GNU\Linux. - Daveout(talk) 01:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of exactly my point. GNU and the FSF itself is inconsistent with what exactly the GNU operating system is or is not. Of course the FSF would want to claim Linux as the GNU OS (but only sometimes?), but that's not exactly an unbiased viewpoint. What do the reliable, third party sources say on the matter? - Aoidh (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no inconsistencies. GNU+Linux is one type of operating system. GNU+Hurd is another one. It's actually very simple. (Two examples of third-party sources calling it an OS: here and here) - Daveout(talk) 02:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The first source you cited supports exactly what I'm saying. "GNU used alone is meant to meant to represent a full set of tools..." and that GNU, as the OS, is GNU/Linux (or GNU/HURD). This article is about the tools, which can exist independently of GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. The Linux version is covered in its own article, and GNU HURD is as well. The second source doesn't really support what you're saying, it's defining who Stallman is, likely as part of his own bio, not exactly a non-trivial mention. Based on what you're saying, the lede should reflect that GNU is and can be used as part of Linux and part of GNU HURD, which are the OSes that you're referring to, but the GNU packages are not an OS unto itself. Also the sources already in the article, such as Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar which is no small citation, makes great pains to avoid calling GNU an operating system. The other sources including the GNU manefesto itself do point out that the initial intention was to create a fully fledged operating system, but the sources also point out that this didn't happen but there were an extensive series of packages that were completed, and when used with non-GNU items such as the Linux kernel, can form a full operating system. GNU, as in the collection of packages, is not by itself a full operating system any more than the Linux kernel by itself is, even Stallman readily admits to that. So why are we so insistent that the article make declarations that the non-trivial sources aren't making? - Aoidh (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not stop reading in the middle of a sentence. The source actually says this: GNU is an operating system that is free software. [...] GNU used alone is meant to represent a full set of tools, software, and kernel parts that an operating system needs. 👈👈👈

Quoting you: "the lede should reflect that GNU is and can be used as part of Linux and part of GNU HURD, which are the OSes that you're referring to, but the GNU packages are not an OS unto itself"

I really don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that Hurd is part of the GNU operating system (while linux is not, even though linux can be used to replace GNU's official kernel). - Daveout(talk) 16:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that the GNU tools with Hurd is a project to create the GNU operating system, but it needs to specify that as gnu.org says: It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. So it is an incomplete, or at least not "production ready", operating system today. I would be fine if we specify that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice. I also agree with that and this sounds like a good compromise. I'll attempt to add that info, feel free to make further changes as you see fit. - Daveout(talk) 20:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

And that's why GNU HURD has an article. GNU tools are used in Linux; Linux is not HURD. This article's subject is about the packages. The initial attempt to create an operating system is part of its history but not part of its current identity. More to the point what you quoted doesn't support what you're saying. Yes, they are things that an operating system needs. That does not make it an operating system unto itself. I didn't include that part because it's irrelevant at best, and argues against what you're saying at best. - Aoidh (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

You probably should start by reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA and withdraw your remarks, before you start accusing longstanding editors of being vandals. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Although I do agree with @Isacdaavid, but WP:NPA please.

Open-source supporters (which is most of the FOSS community) don't use the term "GNU(/Linux)" because open source doesn't address the ethical issues that free software does, and that's "free software supporters" are uncommon.

Because of that, people don't realize that GNU is an operating system.

GNU was planned to be a UNIX "remake", not to be a collection of tools. With GNU Hurd, it can accomplish that. GNU/Linux is also an operating system, it's just GNU but with Linux kernel.

For these reasons, I think that GNU(/Linux) IS an Operating System. - NexusSfan (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC) NexusSfan (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

References

acronym?

isnt the full name "GNU's Not Unix" Supa dan 10G (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Supa dan 10G No – that's not how hackers work. It's just GNU. Also: recursive acronym – very important. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Supa dan 10G Also also: please use WP:REFDESK for generalized discussion and inquiries going forward. Talk pages are for improving articles, and (generally) not for discussing their subjects. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Latest preview?

Latest preview	0.9 (18 December 2016) [±]

What is this? How do we remove it? I don't think this is sourced, neither does it make sense. Tusharhero (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tusharhero: It's referring to GNU HURD 0.9, which seems more relevant to GNU Hurd than to this article specifically. It's being transcluded from Template:Latest preview software release/GNU. - Aoidh (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've emptied Template:Latest preview software release/GNU; as far as I know, there has never been a release of GNU as a single item ("here's a CD or ISO image from which you can install GNU on your PC"), as opposed to releases of individual components of GNU. The GNU project appears to consider entirely-free-software Linux distributions to be GNU (see https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html), but it's not as if there's a single such distribution that could be considered the GNU system (see https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html). Guy Harris (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There is GNU Guix, which is the closest. But yeah it does not make sense. Thank you for doing th edits. Tusharhero (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Why contradict the references?

I do not want to be confrontational, but it is strange that the current content directly contradicts the reference 3,5(which call it an operating system). Also, what is the harm in mentioning GNU/Linux (which is also mentioned in reference 9), and then mention that it is more popularly called Linux (maybe erroneously is a bit much). Tusharhero (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it really our job to determine whether it really is an operating system, when the sources say it is? Tusharhero (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research Tusharhero (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. Tusharhero (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Tusharhero (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This is covered in the GNU as an operating system section. While the GNU Project itself describes GNU as an operating system, other sources do not. While there are sources that describe the creation of an operating system as the GNU Project's goal, even sources that use the GNU Project's preferred nomenclature of GNU/Linux such as Debian describe what the GNU Project has developed as a comprehensive set of free software tools, not an operating system. This isn't original research, and the lede of the article should not definitively state what sources themselves do not agree on. They all agree that it is software but not that it is an operating system. - Aoidh (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

@Aoidh your first source link does not work for me, would you be able to check or resend another one? Furthermore, there are absolutely sources other than the GNU project itself that consider GNU as an operating system. Here is a quote from Lawrence Lessig's The Future of Ideas (p. 54):

"Instead, Torvalds started playing with Minix, an educational version of an

OS released by computer science professor Andrew Tannenbaum. Minix

ran on a PC but was designed as a teaching tool. It was therefore incom-

plete. So in 1990, Torvalds began building an alternative to Minix, which

he released to the Internet in 1991. That code was released subject to a li-

cense called the General Public License (GPL). (We’ll see more of this

later.) It was therefore free for anyone to take and use, as long as they didn’t

bottle up what they took.

People rapidly realized, however, that with a little bit of work linking the

parts of an OS that Stallman had built to the core of the OS that Torvalds

had released, Stallman’s objective of an open and free Unix-flavored OS

could be realized. Quite quickly, then, Linux—or GNU/Linux for those

who want to keep the contributions in view—was born. GNU/Linux was

a platform that came with its source; anyone could take and build upon this

platform. Because it came with its source, anyone could tinker with it to

make it better. Many did, and in a very short period of time, GNU/Linux be-

came quite good."

Also, the Debian source you cited seems to have contradictory statements than yours, the first line of the article is:

"GNU/Linux is an operating system: a series of programs that let you interact with your computer and run other programs."

And, it continues:

"In a GNU/Linux system, Linux is the kernel component. The rest of the system consists of other programs, many of which were written by or for the GNU Project. Because the Linux kernel alone does not form a working operating system, we prefer to use the term “GNU/Linux” to refer to systems that many people casually refer to as “Linux”."

If the comprehensive set of free software tools are all *necessary* for doing operations that form the core of an operating system, then indeed, the set of tools form an operating system. It is as much of an operating system as the set of tools formed by say, Plan 9, is also an operating system. Divyaranjan1905 (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is another secondary source which call it GNU operating system: [2]

GNU stands for the recursive acronym “GNU’s Not Unix”. This name was chosen because, unlike Unix, GNU is an Open-Source Operating System. The goal of the GNU is to provide a completely free software Operating System that can be used on various Computer hardware. In this article, I will discuss what is GNU, its origin, components, and differences from Unix. So let’s start Tusharhero (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It also explains how RMS started it to create a free operating system, not simple a collection of software

The GNU project was first launched by Richard Stallman in 1983, with the aim to create a free and open-source operating system. The increasing use of copyrighted and patented software and the restrictions for users to use them made him think about creating a free for all operating system. The project’s goal was to create a free software OS that was similar to Unix but not based on it, and neither it would have any restrictions like Unix.

Over the years, this project developed a variety of software components including a Kernel, compiler, text editor, and various utilities, libraries, and applications. Most of the developments were driven by volunteers who shared the stallman’s vision. It also promoted the principles of free software, defended user freedom & digital privacy, and developed GNU General Public License (GPL). Tusharhero (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Not every other source calls it "Free software collection.", some call it operating system as well. Also

This revision should be restored because he started the development of the GNU operating system, operating systems are software. Even if you think currently no one agrees that if it is an operating system. Every source agrees that the project started explicitly to write a complete free software replacement for UNIX (Which happens to be a modular operating system.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU&oldid=1282304681 Tusharhero (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)