GNU Enterprise was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 December 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into GNU. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
GNU's most important task is to provide open source versions of the UNIX command line tools. There is some other software under the GNU umbrella as well, such as GNOME. But it's still an exaggeration to call GNU an operating system. It's more like a collection of some essential components for an operating system. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here on Wikipedia we add content based on verfiable reliable non-primary sources. What should be in the article, if it can be backed up by such sources, is all of the points-of-views of what GNU is, including the one you express here. — Lentower (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GNU certainly is not a fully functional operating system on its own, so it might be a bit misleading to call it such. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd call it the operating system that never was, making a point to highlight that Linux, which, unlike GNU, is a real, fully functional operating system, has won.126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Linux alone-- the kernel only-- is not a "fully functional operating system" at all.CrazyDave2345 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How salty. "GNU advocate" here. Ever heard of the Debian GNU/Hurd? That's a fully functioning albeit experimental operating system. If by "won", you mean "every layperson calls Linux a 'fully functional operating system'" even though a minimal fully functioning "Linux" instance (one that can compile and build itself from source) contains more code written by the GNU Project than by Linus (and the kernel team)" (and don't give me crap about how glibc and the coreutils can be replaced, cause the gcc sure can't, and anyway "Linux" itself can be readily replaced by kfreebsd) then you're right. If by "won" you mean "the most successful popularizers of 'Linux' don't give a fuck about freedom and consider 'open source' a profitable buzzword", then you're right again. And if by "won" you mean "people think a blobby monolithic kernel is the height of efficiency and modularity" you're right a third time. So hooray for the successful propagation of an invidious and ultimately harmful lie!
That being said, if your intent was to assert that "Linux has defeated GNU and free software", you are mistaken. The greatest bastion of support for the GNU Project and its ideals is (by far) the "Linux" community itself.
With Richard Stallman out of the way, GNU is finally dead. I wonder how long it'll take Wikipedia to acknowledge it.188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure how you figure that, got any refs for it? There are still many people doing dev work on GNU projects. It is not like all work ended. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole operating system project is the GNU project. Please see the GNU/Linux naming controversy. Linux is just one of the kernels of the GNU operating system. The Linux kernel became this big only after it was freed to GPL licence and made a part of the whole operating system. Hurd is another kernel of the operating system. How can all these facts be ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am using GNU Operating System with the Linux kernel in my laptop, and Android Operating System with the Linux kernel in my phone. HURD is a kernel, just like Linux. HURD, Linux are not Operating Systems.
gzip, 7zip, compress registered trade names or trade marks
GNU compress look so good on a GUI but for legal reasons had to be renamed. Another promising packer software name would be gnu Densify.
consensus that GNU is a collection of software, but, by itself not a complete operating system — (Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ahunt)
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.
I have removed three citations used to support the claim that GNU was an operating system. These were specifically and expressly referring to GNU Hurd, an operating system developed by the GNU project, which as you see has its own article and is not the 'GNU' this article refers to. Hence those citations didn't belong here.
Aside from this I mirror the opinion above that calling GNU an operating system is misleading the reader. An operating system is a combination of code capable of operating computational circuitry. While you can argue whether an operating system also is more than that and the basic functions should just be called a kernel, it is indisputably not less than that. 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. Therefore, we should not call GNU an operating system in the opening paragraph; we should call it a collection of programmes, which is completely uncontroversial and unambiguous under any definition, and cover the topic of to what extent GNU gets referred to as an operating system in a separate header. Korn (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with what you have written. Are you able to make those further changes? - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't mislead people. GNU Hurd is a kernel of an OS, just like the kernel known as Linux. GNU is an operating system. They made all the software, and where in the process of making the kernel. Linus made a proprietary kernel, based on a monolithic design, and nobody cared about it. He then freed it, put inside the GNU OS, and called the entire OS as Linux. Other operating systems which have Linux as the kernel are called Operating Systems. Android is called an Operating System, Firefox OS is called an Operating System, Chrome OS is called an Operating System. But somehow some people don't want to call GNU Operating System and Operating System. Use the same standards for all systems. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citations in question were unambiguously not about GNU Hurd; they were about GNU as an operating system in general, without respect to what kernel it uses: the Handbook reference claims that GNU is an operating system, the most widely used variants of which use the Linux kernel; the GNU Manifesto refers to GNU as a complete Unix clone and doesn't refer to the kernel at all, since neither Linux nor HURD existed at the time the Manifesto was written; and the ESR reference also refers to GNU as an operating system that completely clones Unix. As the sources supported exactly the claims being made in the article, I have restored them, and added relevant quotations.
It's not our place to omit or contradict information contained in reliable sources simply because we have a difference of opinion. Ahunt and Korn, if there is an argument to be made that GNU is not an operating system, then you need to either demonstrate that the three sources given in the article are not reliable (and that no further reliable sources exist in support of this claim), in which case the claim can be removed, or else you need to find further reliable sources arguing that GNU is not an operating system, and then use them to document the controversy of GNU's status in the article (giving due weight to each side of the argument). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upon further digging into the article history, I see now that the references Korn removed weren't the ones I was referring to in my comment above, but actually a great deal more. It looks like the removed references indeed referred to Hurd rather than GNU as a whole. But the three remaining references in the lede still explicitly refer to GNU as a whole as an operating system, and so my point still stands. As long as these references remain in the article, there is no basis on which we can remove the claim that GNU is an operating system. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your refs indeed show that the original intention was to create an GNU operating system, but the FSF ref cited shows that it was never completed to an operational status, because Hurd development was never followed through beyond an unstable testing level. As FSF says today: It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. The additional of other software from outside GNU, like Linux and BSD created hybrid, although workable operating systems. The additional of even more outside software, like browsers and office software made them usable on a daily basis. Today the GNU projcet results are useful software that is used to make up components an operating system in typical Linux distributions, but these are just as easily replaced on OSs like Android. Today there still is no completed GNU operating system; there was a plan in the 1980s to create one, but it was never completed. The refs are pretty clear such that that you can state it was "an unrealized plan to create a an operating system" or, alternatively a "collection of software" that is used to create an operating system when combined with outside components". - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stating it that way would be at best putting words in the mouths of the cited authors and at worst flat-out contradicting them. (What part of "Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel called Linux, are now widely used" justifies the notion that GNU is incomplete?) If you want to revise the article to cast GNU as a failed or incomplete operating system, then you first need find some references that make this claim explicitly. But be mindful of 18.104.22.168's argument above: we don't claim that Android is "not an operating system" or "an incomplete operating system" just because it integrates a pre-existing kernel. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are going to argue that GNU is a complete and functional operating system, because it can use the Linux kernel, then we already have a very longstanding consensus as to what those operating systems are called on Wikipedia: Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I am arguing is that we should use the terminology adopted by reliable sources, and the three reliable sources cited for the nature of GNU in the lede all call it an operating system. To the extent that "longstanding consensus" matters, I should point out that the present article has been calling GNU an operating system as far back in its history as 2002. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you just proved my point in conjuring up those three lead refs. St Amant and Still's quote, as well as Raymond's, show that the aim was to produce an operating system and neither give any statement that that work was ever considered complete. Even Stallman's quote is GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. All of these three refs directly support that the original intention was to write a complete operating system. None state the work was ever completed. Even Stallman's entire document is written in future tense, a direct indication that it remains unrealized.
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. Furthermore, that same page it quotes the most recent evaluation from Signell, I don't use GNU/Hurd for my day-to-day business (yet), that is mainly due to some of the above mentioned missing features ... When some of the missing features are implemented (and remaining bugs squeezed out) I will seriously consider using the Hurd on real hardware, as my primary system. For now it stays in the VM environment, mainly for porting and development purposes. If there are any refs that say it has been completed and can now be used, I have not seen them. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're starting to rehash arguments that have already been addressed as recently as yesterday. I'm not going to belabour the points that I and others have already made. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay then I guess there are no refs that say it was ever considered a complete operating system and ready for production use. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't mislead people. I know that a lot of people using the GNU Operating System. I use the GNU Operating System with the Linux kernel in my laptop, and the Android Operating System with the Linux kernel in my phone. I have mentioned it before. Cherry picking should not be done intentionally. This fallacy is a common theme here. Other operating systems which have Linux as the kernel are called Operating Systems. Android is called an Operating System, Firefox OS is called an Operating System, Chrome OS is called an Operating System. But somehow you don't want to call GNU Operating System and Operating System. GNU Hurd is a kernel of an OS, just like the kernel known as Linux. GNU is an operating system. They made all the software, and where in the process of making the kernel. Linus made a proprietary kernel, based on a monolithic design, and nobody cared about it. He then freed it, put inside the GNU OS (as the last piece of the jigsaw), and called the entire OS as Linux. Use the same standards for all systems. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, if you want to change the the goalposts for the GNU Project and ignore the refs that you cited. This whole thread supports the text changes that User:Korn had made. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahunt, you have not provided any reference that GNU OS and the Android OS can have different set of standards for qualifying as an operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay now you are down to word games. You know perfectly well that Android never had a design goal of creating a new OS from scratch with a newly designed kernel, as the GNU Project did. It was always intended to use the Linux kernel and it does. Android met its original design goals, whereas GNU never has.
You say your laptop is running the GNU operating system, but you haven't provided ref for that. I also have a laptop I am writing this on. It is a System76 and it is running Lubuntu, which is an operating system that uses the Linux kernel, some GNU tools and other applications such as Firefox, FeatherPad and LibreOffice. The developers of it describe it as being Built with a rock-solid Ubuntu Linux base ... Lubuntu works flawless, giving you a smooth Linux experience. The devs don't mention GNU at all and specifically do not call it a GNU operating system, because it isn't. That source's position is also in accordance with the consensus here on Wikipedia that calls Lubuntu a Linux distribution and covers it as an operating system as part of Linux. I am curious as to which GNU operating system you are running and how its devs describe it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the gnu.org: GNU is an operating system that is free software—that is, it respects users' freedom. The GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically released by the GNU Project) as well as free software released by third parties. I am using a third party free software called Linux kernel.
The operating system project is GNU. They made all the software, and where in the process of making the kernel. Linus made a proprietary kernel, based on a monolithic design, and nobody cared about it. He then freed it, put inside the GNU OS (as the last piece of the jigsaw), and called the entire OS as Linux.
If you have a reference that they had a goal where by the entire software stack had to be made by the GNU developers, and that they have since shifted their goal post, please provide the link. As far as I know, that is not the goal of any large software project, and reusing other people's work is how all software is written. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay we have already been around that one. Stallman himself and that page you cited, too, calls what you are calling a "GNU Operating System" with a Linux kernel, "GNU/Linux". As per MOS:LINUX, on Wikipedia we call that "Linux". I think we can close this thread out. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything you are quote are all WP:PRIMARY from the GNU Projects itself. You need to show that third party sources agree with that obviously slanted POV, or else it is nothing more than promoting the subject of the article, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay it seems pretty clear from your edits and the discussion above that you are here to promote the GNU Project though this article. From discussions on this page there is no current consensus for your additions so rather than edit war, I would suggest you leave things here for a few days and let's see if other editors would like to express some opinions on this issue. The last editor to work on this page, before you changed it all, has been MIA for a few days and there are other page watchers who will probably chime in, given a chance here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was in the middle of editing this document. Sure, I will leave the page as-is. I don't want an edit war, but a neutral point of view. Let us see what others have to say, other than me, you, Psychonaut and Korn.
I have reached here from a conversation forum where one of the editors involved in this debate came to solicit links in support of the idea that GNU is an operating system. I support removing the statement that GNU is an operating system. GNU is a collection of free software packages. But an operating system is defined as "a set of programs that controls the way a computer works and runs other programs" in Oxford dictionary and as a "set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run" on debian website. If GNU is an operating system, I want to see where I can download it from to make my computer run. The gnu.org website itself points to GNU/Linux operating systems like PureOS and Trisquel which describe themselves as "GNU/Linux". So, GNU is not "an" operating system. GNU is a family of operating systems. And this family includes PureOS, Trisquel, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. It is the family that is widely known as "Linux" family of operating systems (as pointed out elsewhere in this thread). The [Linux] page does talk about the controversy of naming of that family of operating systems. It is sad that the family of operating systems didn't get called GNU operating systems. It is sad that it didn't even get called GNU/Linux. But it is the reality. And wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a historian who gives credit where credit is due. asdofindia (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts here, but also for letting us know that the IP above was conducting WP:CANVAS, which is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what's the problem. GNU is a collection of software. This is unchallenged consensus and hence is put into the opening line. Whether 'GNU', specifically the software project just called 'GNU' which is the topic of this article, is an operating system is debated. The article mentions that there are two definitions of 'operating system', one of which 'GNU' (again 'GNU' as covered in this article, not 'GNU Hurd', which is a subset of it) without question or doubt does not meet, precisely because it is a software collection, not a kernel. As to whether it meets the other is debated. With 50% of the definitions undeniably not met and the other debated, subsuming GNU as an operating system does not belong in the opening paragraph, as it needs some qualification/explanation, which said paragraph cannot provide, and hence is misleading through omission. As for the debated definition, we present all combinations of GNU with external and internal kernels, point out where names are debated, and which combinations are full operating systems under that definition including nothing but GNU software. So what exaclty is in question here, when the situation is explained by the article in full? It seems to me the only thing really argued about is whether GNU should be called an operating system in the first sentence, which for the reasons given, is not acceptable for a neutral dictionary and, frankly, seems like POV pushing.
ps.: Per WP:RS the FSF is one of the least authorities on how to qualify their project. Their viewpoint can be presented unfiltered on their own webpage, an encyclopedia must contextualise it, which the article does and the opening paragraph does not. This contextualisation also creates the asked for neutral POV, which is not 'GNU is a software collection and operating system' but rather 'GNU is a software collection. The FSF considers it an operating system, which is undebated under the following conditions if you define an "operating system" as follows [...] but is debated when [...]"', which, again, the article presents, the opening paragraph does not. Korn (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, with no further discussion in the last five days I think we can close this with the consensus above. I have returned the article to the consensus WP:NPOV text. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
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)Reply[reply]
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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,  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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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.
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]