Firefox+Plasma+Wayland+SystemD+GNU+Linux

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, systemd/GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd init system made useful by the systemd daemons, shell utilities and redundant system components comprising a full init system as defined by systemd itself.

Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd init system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called GNU/Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd init system, developed by the Red Hat.

There really is a GNU/Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the init system they use. GNU/Linux is the os: a collection of programs that can be run by the init system. The operating system is an essential part of an init system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete init system. GNU/Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd init system: the whole system is basically systwmd with GNU/Linux added, or systemd/GNU/Linux. All the so-called GNU/Linux distributions are really distributions of systemd/GNU/Linux!

I made the joke that we’ll have SystemD/Linux replacing GNU/Linux and the number of “well asckuallys…” that popped up was simultaneously humorous and saddening.

Do you want the pegging scenes to be implied or graphic?

Parts of 4chan’s take on the Big Bang Theory may fit the bill:

New fetish unlocked

You can bludgeon me to death with those facts baby

Maybe it just boils down to "Linux" simply sounding better when pronounced

Just like e.g. most people just say "velcro" and not "hook-and-loop" as the company Velcro itself wants people to call it.

"The OS" doesn't exist. The operating systems you're talking about are called Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, RHEL, etc etc. The main work of making an actually usable OS from the various free software components others have written has always been done by the teams responsible for these products.

But we still need a way to refer to them collectively, and it used to make sense to call them "Linux" because they were pretty much the only operating systems that used the Linux kernel, but now that Android is the most widely used OS on the planet, it doesn't anymore, and this alone is a reason to say GNU/Linux unless you want to include Android.

I work in IT and sometimes I have to explain something to a user who is somewhat tech-illiterate. Even developers may have significant blind spots when it comes to their OS or networking, for example.

So, if I notice it, I'll change some terminology and I may explain instructions differently or use metaphors so every user understands what I'm saying.

And most coworkers do the same thing.

Here's why I bring this up: For whatever reason, some colleagues give female coworkers the same treatment.

And that's weird.

If someone is constantly treated like this, they should be allowed to rant about it on their blog. I'm fine with snark if it geht's a point across.

hey look its the guy from the meme

All the core tools are actually a single executable with many symlinks to it, which makes the distro very compact. This makes it very nice as a base for Docker images.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox

It's because we can to an extreme. Extremely lightweight distro. Very nice in containers and vms. One of the most loved ones out there.

I don't know if people use it on desktop but with its minimal size it's convenient as hell for docker images that don't need a lot of dependencies installed

I know it's very efficient and small (I believe it needs less than 80mib of ram with nothing else running) and that they leave out some of the basic commands like man to save space. Maybe they wrote more minimal versions of some coreutils?

get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux

I would say it's the opposite. Certain people get angry if you do not refer to it as GNU/Linux. These people used to be technically correct.

GNU tried to rewrite Unix from scratch under the GNU GPL license. They view their copy left license (a license where if you incorporate any code under their license, you must release the code of your project as well) as morally superior. Their kernel didn't work out, but Linus Torvolds wrote another kernel for that GNU OS.

Obviously, GNU wanted credit for the OS components that were not Linux. That's where the copypasta about "What you are using is in fact GNU+Linux..." came from. GNU is the heart of the free software movement so they have their fans as well that of course would also make that claim.

Of course, as the meme in the OP suggests, you can now have a Linux distro that either does not use code owned by GNU or uses very little of their code. I would argue Ubuntu, Arch, etc still are technically GNU+Linux as they use GNU's C compiler, their C implementation, their userspace programs like Bash and grep, etc. However, Alpine uses alternatives to GNU software such as the musl C implementation.

as far as i'm aware it's just a copypasta, knowyourmeme explains it pretty well

This is a joke. Most people are not remotely concerned about these things.

For real why are people so hyped about having less software built by people principled in protecting their freedoms?

GNU and the FSF are awesome!