Linux

7349 readers

280 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon

anzo

dwraf_of_ignorance

-11

Should we use *Linux when referring to the entire system, instead of Linux? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/linux

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been thinking about the best way to refer to systems that use the Linux kernel, whilst avoiding the confusions that come with using the latter for both meanings. Since there are GNU and non-GNU (e.g, Alpine Linux) systems, I assume that *Linux would cover both. However, for users without a technical background, the asterisk means much less than it does to developers — this seems self-deprecating, considering that the point of the suggested term is to avoid confusion for NON-TECHNICAL users. Am I overthinking?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For what? It's just Linux Kernel. If you speak about a specific operating system or distribution, then you can call it by name. Otherwise I've recently taken to calling it "Linux based operating system", when I try to avoid to call it by name (EndeavourOS).

[–] LeFantome 1 points 2 days ago

That works.

To my ear though, “Linux based” leans too much towards the kernel. It makes me want to ask “what do you mean”.

I prefer “Linux distribution” or just Linux distro. If I was asked what that meant, I would simply have to say that Linux is available from different groups each of which curates slightly different collections of software which they “distribute”. Nobody needs to knew what a kernel is to understand that explanation.

I mean, I just say Linux. But when I do feel the need to distinguish, Linux distro and Linux kernel works for me.