Talk:GNU

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.^[1]

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^[2]. With GNU Hurd, it can accomplish that.^[3] 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)

A much more reasonable approach is to think of GNU as a family of operating systems. Where the GNU project develops software with the original intention having been creating their own operating system distribution, since they didn't finished the task and third parties took the software developed by the GNU Project and formed a complete OS distribution out of it, it is therefore those third parties who then formed a complete operating system distribution out of the GNU project's software along with other third party additions. Therefore each such distribution itself is A GNU operating system. There is no one GNU operating system because the GNU project doesn't distribute one under that name, but there does exist a family of third party compilations of software in the form of the system distributions collectively known as GNU. Since GNU is the parent and the point of origin for those system distributions, each such distribution is itself A distribution of the GNU operating system. So GNU is not AN operating system, but rather a family of operating systems where each DISTRIBUTION is A distribution of the GNU operating system. After all, what is it they distribute? Well the GNU operating system is what they distribute, maybe along with other third party software, but GNU is the point of origin where the development began, other software is added in at a later date, that's what a distribution means.

Projects such as Arch, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, OpenMandriva, Slackware etc. distribute a GNU operating system distribution in combination with the Linux kernel forming a sub-category within the family of GNU operating systems called "GNU/Linux", amongst other sub-categories under the GNU family are ones such as using the FreeBSD's kernel or NetBSD or illumos etc. So therefore the greater GNU operating system family encompasses the different "variants" of GNU such as GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD and others, even the Hurd kernel itself, which is just vanilla GNU is a part of this family of GNU operating systems. Each such distribution a part of the family of GNU operating systems, so therefore, GNU as an operating system, a family of GNU operating systems. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

While much of the userland software included in most Linux distributions comes from the GNU project, not all of it does. Some don't even use the GNU libc, e.g. Alpine Linux ("Alpine Linux is a Linux distribution that uses musl, BusyBox, and OpenRC instead of glibc, GNU Core Utilities, and systemd, respectively.").

Then again, even the GNU operating system, as proposed in the GNU Manifesto (from the Web Archive because gnu.org isn't responding to my machine's requests right now) isn't composed entirely of GNU software:

We will use the free, portable X Window System as well.

This dates back to 1987; what it's describing sounds more like a free-software competitor to existing commercial Unixes than a "gather a whole bunch of software from a zillion independent projects and distribute that collection" (i.e., a Linux distribution) or even "a core OS that the project develops plus a packaging system with a bunch of packages from a zillion independent projects" (i.e, a *BSD).

So perhaps it makes no sense to have a "GNU operating system" in a world of, well, a zillion independent projects that provide useful libraries and programs. Even the remaining traditional Unixes either 1) have a packaging system and a collection of packages it offers (Solaris does, for example), 2) provide some of the software from those zillion independent projects as part of the OS (macOS does, for example), or 3) both.

And maybe most if not all Unix-like OSes (whether trademarked Unix or not) now are, if you include the packaging systems of OSes that have a core that's separate from the packages, distributions, with the GNU project being one of the independent projects mentioned above. Guy Harris (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Alpine uses some GNU, the "extended" install image contains GNU coreutils, GNU grub, GNU ncurses, GMP, libgcc, GNU libidn2, GNU parted, GNU readline, GNU tar, and GNU wget by default.

Although GNU was intended to use some already existing free software projects at the time, there is a fully GNU operating system. https://web.archive.org/web/20120206064816/http://i-hug.sarovar.org/downloads/GNU/extended/latest/ This is now lost media, but it shows that you can use GNU as a standalone OS. It's unlikely there would be a modern fully GNU OS, the closest thing you have is Guix/Hurd. ~2026-99321 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

What you said sounds like an Ignoratio elenchi, does not address the issue. What does Alpine have to do with this? Alpine isn't a GNU system, the existence of non-GNU systems that make use of the Linux kernel is not relevant and does not serve as a counter argument to what I said.

There is a definitive family of operating systems originating from Richard Stallman's initial creation of the GNU operating system that share a common history and heritage, or are you going to dispute this fact? What these system distributions have in common is the shared origin, and their continued use of GNU software, thus it is appropriate they be referred to as being of the same family due to the shared heritage and likeness.

Linux is a kernel, Linus Torvalds started it in 1991, it is used in a variety of operating systems such as Android and various distributions of the GNU operating system in the form of GNU/Linux, and yes, also Alpine. But what has Linux's use in those other systems that are not GNU, got to do with whether the systems that do have a common heritage and point of origin in the GNU Project are or are not a family of operating systems? As if the introduction of the third party component to form a complete system distribution in the form of the kernel, somehow erases the shared heritage of the GNU systems. You will find, Linus Torvalds never finished an operating system himself either, so why should the Linux kernel be given precedent to justify ignoring the shared heritage in GNU. The kernel is but a component, and it is also not the point of origin for the complete system distributions in history, those projects have their historical roots in the GNU Project, or are you going to dispute this fact?

The GNU Project started by Richard Stallman actually did spawn complete operating systems. Linus Torvalds can be given credit for the kernel is important enough to warrant mention, thus as a courtesy for his technical contributions systems making use of Linux can include Linux in the name alongside GNU, however it is important to realize that the inclusion of the Linux in the name does not erase the historical relationship the system distributions have with the GNU project. It is a historical misrepresentation to claim that Linux is the point of origin, it is simply false. People making the first distributions knew about GNU and contributed to the creation of a complete GNU system, to claim Linux was the point of origin is to rewrite history. If one of the two is to be given precedent as a family of operating systems, perhaps having an "umbrella term", then GNU would be the better option as it is the point of origin, not Linux which is a component that got added in later to form some complete GNU system distributions in the form of GNU/Linux.

But yes, Linux can be used in other operating systems, like Android, or Alpine,, so what? Android and Alpine aren't GNU systems. But the system distributions that do have a shared heritage and point of origin began with the GNU project. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I should mention that the X windowing system is a protocol created as a joint venture between various Unix vendors at the time. Implementing what is essentially the Unix windowing system in an Unix-like operating system (which is what GNU is), you will find, many Unix and Unix-like systems make use of the X windowing system, hardly constitutes a reason not to acknowledge such systems as their own independent systems and operating system families. As in, get this, GNU, too, is a part of a greater family of operating systems, that being the family of Unix / Unix-like systems, and this, is, in fact, already represented in the name: GNU's Not Unix.

X windowing system is already accounted for, this does not erase the GNU identity, just as it doesn't erase any other Unix-like system's identity if they use the X Windowing Systems, because it's what Unix type operating systems do. They are all a part of the greater Unix family of operating systems. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

P.P.S wait, the more times I re-read what you wrote the more confused I get as to what exactly you were trying to say, and I conclude now I am not at all following what you were saying. What I replied to you with may or may not itself be addressing what you said at all. So my angle is that there has been a lot of talk about either GNU is an operating system or it is not, and those are the two possibilities. Now I perceive this to be a false dichotomy where those are not the only two possibilities, instead I offer a third one where "GNU operating system" is in actuality a family of distributions of it. When you said it makes no sense to have GNU as an operating system, is that in opposition or in support of the idea of having GNU as a family of operating systems?

The way I reread what you wrote makes it seem like you might have even agreed with me but I didn't get it the first time and then wrote a nonsense reply that didn't address what you said at all. But regardless I believe my argument about the family of operating systems is still valid of course, all I did was fail to address what you said. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There's actually an FAQ entry about why GNU is still an operating system. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#notinstallable

"We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name “GNU,” but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is. GNU is an operating system." ~2026-99321 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Even though you may not see a fully packaged/installable GNU, it doesn't make it less of an operating system. ~2026-99321 (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have communicated the idea properly, what I mean to say is that there is no the GNU operating system, in the sense that each distro itself is a GNU operating system, there are many. So is there such a thing as the concept of "GNU operating system" out there in existence, that would be a yes, where one could say that yes GNU is an operating system, in the form of the distributions of it such as Debian for example. Because of this I think it's appropriate to call them together a family of operating systems. So I don't disagree with you that GNU does manifest in the world as an operating system, therefore there really is such a thing as "GNU operating system".

The way I see it is that on wikipedia each article on such distributions like Debian or Arch or Slackware etc. ought to be rewritten to say each one is "a distribution of GNU" therefore a part of the family of GNU operating systems, rather than the current erroneous "Linux distribution" which they certainly are not, because linux-libre is a distribution of Linux. A complete operating system distribution consists of more than just the kernel so it makes absolutely no sense to call the distribution of a complete system environment as a distribution of the kernel, in that, the operating system distribution includes a distribution of the kernel, but the system distribution itself is obviously not that distribution of the kernel because it contains it.

I am approaching this from the point of view of introducing a third option to resolve the dispute between people arguing whether GNU is or is not an operating system in the first place. I think it is appropriate to categorize them on wikipedia as a family of operating systems because there are many and not one, therefore this third option invalidates the false premise that either a single GNU operating system does or does not exist, which is what the debate has been about thus far. In other words, people have been operating under the false assumption that there either does exist a single the GNU operating system, or it is somehow not any form of an operating system at all, which both are false, because there are many system distribution of GNU which each are a GNU operating system. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that GNU is a family of operating systems, not just one (at the moment). ~2026-99321 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S. This was also written by me before I created this account here on Wikipedia I use now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNU#c-~2026-13162-53-20260228133900-~2026-12746-18-20260226153600

I recommend that the entire contents of the article on GNU variants should be put in this article GNU on which we are now in the Talk section of, into the part on this article where it says "GNU as an operating system" then currently links to the GNU Variants page as the "Main article", for some reason. Then that section here currently titled "GNU as an operating system" should be changed to "GNU Variants" as with the title of the current separate article this one would be merged with. Then the title of this article now newly merged with the other, should be changed to GNU (family of operating systems) then the lead should clearly explain the relation to the GNU Project as the main development effort behind the operating system and it's various forms. Plus a mention of the FSF which is currently desperately missing from the lead of each article. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The link works fine for me. I didn't state or intend to imply that the GNU Project was the only source that described it as such, the point is that it's not an undisputed thing and that often what sources describe as GNU operating systems is otherwise called a Linux distribution. This includes your example, which at no point says that GNU is itself an operating system only says that "Parts of an OS" were built. That source neither contradicts what is currently in the order, nor does it support the change being discussed. - Aoidh (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

some call it operating system as well yes, some. Others contradict this. While the creation of an OS was the goal, it being an OS itself is far from an uncontested claim, especially when in many cases Linux distributions are what is being described as a "GNU operating system" rather than as Linux or even GNU/Linux. This includes the GNU website itself, which says We recommend installable versions of GNU (more precisely, GNU/Linux distributions). We already have an article for that type of operating system, this article is about GNU itself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that there is already a separation of two articles on wikipedia about GNU, them being this one and the other one is GNU variants, I propose rewriting the articles as "GNU Project" and "GNU operating system" respectively. This avoids the trouble with "an extensive collection" of software and the surrounding confusion. The GNU project started by Richard Stallman is sponsored by the FSF to develop the GNU operating system. And then for the other article, the GNU operating system to developed by the GNU Project. Thus the two articles can interlink with each other to make the separation clear. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

As it turns out there is already an article for the GNU Project which is separate from both this one GNU and the other one GNU Variants, which means I now propose instead to merge this one GNU with the GNU variants, leaving the GNU Project one alone. There is no need to separate GNU and GNU variants if GNU Project already exists. The new merged article fulfills the role of GNU as an operating system and it's various implementations, where the GNU Project is the project developing it and it's surrounding extensive collection of software.

I also propose titling the new merged article as GNU (family of operating systems). I propose opening the new merged article with GNU variants (also called GNU distributions or distros for short[vague]) are a family of operating systems based mainly upon software developed by the GNU Project, usually in combination with third party software. ~2026-13162-53 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)