Free Software is cool. I've personally contributed to Linux. But I don't personally think arguments like this help much.
Nothing wrong with correcting history, but the term 'Vanilla Linux', while honestly I don't know what they mean by it, is not such a problematic one that warranted accusation, nor the fallout from either side.
No it's really not. It really is pedantic and mostly giving credit to those that came before, if anything there are more important components to the whole "Linux" open ecosystem than just GNU.
systemd could be one such example, not mentioning the plethora of desktop environments and even the whole X and Wayland debacle. GNOME though historically part of GNU has very much built a community and ecosystem of it's own, and even then many don't use their software nor care for it. Like me.
Also without the Linux kernel, GNU on its own is pretty much useless as nothing that integrates well with exists. You can make a hodgepodge with a BSD kennel but then you would just make a whole new operating system. And the Linux kernel and ecosystem can very much exist without GNU and have the software running on top still integrate well.
So no. They don't deserve any more credit than the others to be included in the whole name of an ecosystem.
It's only useful to specify when it makes sense in the conversation and is necessary in it's context which would most likely be technical and not philosophical.
I know all of this history and I know what I am talking about.
Also, it's not written SystemD but systemd ;)
"It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence of ethical judgment."
An ecosystem works regardless of ethics, just because GNU does not like a word being it used doesn't change the world around them. Hell I could quote Engels about this!
People and groups have ethics they put into the software and an ecosystem builds around this software. I say this ecosystem needs more GPL.
The Linux kernel has already outgrown GNU in terms of scope and professionality. Also you've said Alpine don't even care about the naming. As the most important part of the operating system, the Kernel, is there and that's what matters.
Hell most distros don't care about the GNU/Linux naming.
You must be mistaken, GNU is not software, it is the name of the operating system
THEN WHY CAN A GNU LESS SYSTEM EXIST, AND STILL BE A VALID LINUX SYSTEM???
And what about glibc? Just because it's one of the more important components for much of software, which still can be replaced and you will have a valid system without it, they should get the credit? systemd is similar in this aspect and I don't see them crying about it, they are fundamental for many pieces of software.
They don't get the authority to call the system their own until they make one whole themselves or have authority over the most important/defining component! How's HURD going? And if that gets working I suggest you trying to use Linux software on HURD without utilizing BSD ports or replicating them.
You can call it GNU/Linux/SystemD/Wayland/Plasma/Non-free-firmware and you are within your bounds to do so as Free operating systems are not a monolith.
At least we agree on free OS's not being monoliths. At least in theory. But still if people ask me what OS I use, I will say Linux because whatever the fuck you promote is stupid. When they ask what distro, then I will simply reply Parabola. That's it.
They don't call POS' like Windows or MacOS by their technical components.
Because they aren't broken up into them, and don't utilize many parts for themselves from outside sources. Just like BSD operating systems, they've got a whole made by the same people. With the most important component of these systems being, guess which part, the kernel! I know because Debian GNU/kFreeBsd was a thing and I say this hodgepodge does deserve the name because the kernel was broken out of a while in which it normally operates, that being FreeBSD. Even then, sorry not a GNU OS but a FreeBSD one as it's more likely to work with software and ports for that system.
Linux has no such whole. Even if you try to claim it having one historically and through how many distributions do use GNU.
And last. Stop talking like it's 1993 and Linux just began. The world's changed Jack, and so did the wording with it.
Also you are the principal type of person that the FSF loves, and one which has made me no longer care for them that much. Resorting to meaningless debates and shit flinging that the rest of the community had already sorted out years ago, essentially being wreckers that add nothing new to the discussion and taking away everyone's time from now important matters. Those being, actually promoting and furthering the existence of Free Software and the idea of it.
But the most important part to realize, is that Free Software will perish under capitalism. Capitalism is my prime enemy, because I'm a Marxist first and Free Software extremist second. Be pragmatic, not dogmatic.
EDIT: Just take a look at my PFP and the communities I moderate on Lemmygrad. That should tell you enough about me. Because I know my shit, and I've read everything you linked to me before.
Free Software is cool. I've personally contributed to Linux. But I don't personally think arguments like this help much.
Nothing wrong with correcting history, but the term 'Vanilla Linux', while honestly I don't know what they mean by it, is not such a problematic one that warranted accusation, nor the fallout from either side.
Removed by mod
No it's really not. It really is pedantic and mostly giving credit to those that came before, if anything there are more important components to the whole "Linux" open ecosystem than just GNU.
systemd could be one such example, not mentioning the plethora of desktop environments and even the whole X and Wayland debacle. GNOME though historically part of GNU has very much built a community and ecosystem of it's own, and even then many don't use their software nor care for it. Like me.
Also without the Linux kernel, GNU on its own is pretty much useless as nothing that integrates well with exists. You can make a hodgepodge with a BSD kennel but then you would just make a whole new operating system. And the Linux kernel and ecosystem can very much exist without GNU and have the software running on top still integrate well.
So no. They don't deserve any more credit than the others to be included in the whole name of an ecosystem.
It's only useful to specify when it makes sense in the conversation and is necessary in it's context which would most likely be technical and not philosophical.
Removed by mod
I know all of this history and I know what I am talking about. Also, it's not written SystemD but systemd ;)
An ecosystem works regardless of ethics, just because GNU does not like a word being it used doesn't change the world around them. Hell I could quote Engels about this!
People and groups have ethics they put into the software and an ecosystem builds around this software. I say this ecosystem needs more GPL.
The Linux kernel has already outgrown GNU in terms of scope and professionality. Also you've said Alpine don't even care about the naming. As the most important part of the operating system, the Kernel, is there and that's what matters.
Hell most distros don't care about the GNU/Linux naming.
THEN WHY CAN A GNU LESS SYSTEM EXIST, AND STILL BE A VALID LINUX SYSTEM???
And what about glibc? Just because it's one of the more important components for much of software, which still can be replaced and you will have a valid system without it, they should get the credit? systemd is similar in this aspect and I don't see them crying about it, they are fundamental for many pieces of software.
They don't get the authority to call the system their own until they make one whole themselves or have authority over the most important/defining component! How's HURD going? And if that gets working I suggest you trying to use Linux software on HURD without utilizing BSD ports or replicating them.
At least we agree on free OS's not being monoliths. At least in theory. But still if people ask me what OS I use, I will say Linux because whatever the fuck you promote is stupid. When they ask what distro, then I will simply reply Parabola. That's it.
Because they aren't broken up into them, and don't utilize many parts for themselves from outside sources. Just like BSD operating systems, they've got a whole made by the same people. With the most important component of these systems being, guess which part, the kernel! I know because Debian GNU/kFreeBsd was a thing and I say this hodgepodge does deserve the name because the kernel was broken out of a while in which it normally operates, that being FreeBSD. Even then, sorry not a GNU OS but a FreeBSD one as it's more likely to work with software and ports for that system.
Linux has no such whole. Even if you try to claim it having one historically and through how many distributions do use GNU.
And last. Stop talking like it's 1993 and Linux just began. The world's changed Jack, and so did the wording with it.
Also you are the principal type of person that the FSF loves, and one which has made me no longer care for them that much. Resorting to meaningless debates and shit flinging that the rest of the community had already sorted out years ago, essentially being wreckers that add nothing new to the discussion and taking away everyone's time from now important matters. Those being, actually promoting and furthering the existence of Free Software and the idea of it.
But the most important part to realize, is that Free Software will perish under capitalism. Capitalism is my prime enemy, because I'm a Marxist first and Free Software extremist second. Be pragmatic, not dogmatic.
EDIT: Just take a look at my PFP and the communities I moderate on Lemmygrad. That should tell you enough about me. Because I know my shit, and I've read everything you linked to me before.