text is actually a bad medium for programming

@tuxcrafting Whats a good one? Only gui based coding ive seen has been horrific.

@freemo there aren't any good ones because currently the only graphical programming languages are designed either for beginners or for non-programmers
there have been no serious attempts at making a general-purpose one

@tuxcrafting Fair argument but even then I'm skeptical. While i couod see the benefit of better visualizations I'd argue text is still the best way to code.

Let me guys your a windows user?

@freemo nope, all my computers run some distribution of linux or openbsd

@tuxcrafting @freemo I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

@roka @freemo wrong, i have an alpine linux machine and my phone runs on android, so no gnu to be seen there

@tuxcrafting @roka @freemo
If you call our operating system “Linux”, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s origin, history, and purpose. If you call it “GNU/Linux,” that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate idea.

But does this matter? Is it important whether people know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes, because people who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World that has developed around GNU/Linux is not secure; the problems that led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten to come back. When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system “GNU/Linux” rather than “Linux,” people sometimes respond this way:

"Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it really worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit."

This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted. Our community’s strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and inform others of these goals.

People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won’t automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider themselves “Linux users,” and believe that the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in Linux,” typically perceive only an indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they come across it.

The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system. People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made real.

If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux.

@r

I disagree with your leadin that calling it "linux" shows ignorance of the origin. I'd say the opposite, it shows an understanding of the separation between these concepts and means you wish to specify something more general than **just** gnu linux.

As otehrs have mentioned many of us dont run a GNU userland, some of us do. Sometimes we want to be inclusive of all linux, not just GNU/Linux.

Its really no different than specifying Linux as opposed to your distro. You are intentionally be general so as to be inclusive of all the flavors.

@tuxcrafting @roka