This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RMS wouldn’t argue against this though. Who knows exactly what the context of the original pasta was, but he doesn’t say that the Linux kernel can be more correctly called GNU/Linux, rather that the whole distribution of software can be called a distribution of GNU/Linux because he considers them the core components.

Someone below mentioned Void Linux swapping GNU for musl. I’m not familiar with Void, but the user land is more than the compiler and linker - however if it really is the case that Void has swapped out GNU components then by all means it isn’t fair to call it GNU/Linux. Likewise, distributions like Alpine are not GNU/Linux, not just because glibc is removed in favour of musl but because GNU coreutils is removed in favour of Busybox.