Linux

As the others made a good point, Linux is the kernel (program that connects hardware altogether and manages processes). GNU is an organisation beginning in 1983 that made some vital userland programs (Bash, GCC, readline, GNOME, GTK, GIMP, etc.) as a replacement of the proprietary ones found in UNIX and Windows. Linux is created by a Finnish student Linus Torvalds and is not a part of the GNU project but it's been licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), the first free software license.

Linux is used by a lot of companies, and some of the products that have Linux inside refuse to accept the paradigm of software freedom. Examples of this are: Chrome OS, Windows Subsystem for Linux, Google Android and some (but not all) appliances (like routers) that are locked-in and contain proprietary blobs.

Therefore, in technical discussions, I use the word "Linux" to refer to the OS, as "this software is compatible with Linux". But, when I want to stress out software freedom, given a large influence of the GNU project, I say "GNU/Linux".

For me its GNU/linux formally. Linux would not mean anything to me without the gpl. I would likely be using freeBSD or sticking with windows/mac. Heck I would be using mac now if they had not abandoned their great warrantly support of pre 2010

The goes very in-depth on every question you might have on why to call it GNU/Linux. Whether that makes you more or less likely to actually call it that is up to you!

Linux/GNU. GNU would never have been widely adopted anywhere without the Linux kernel. Plus, Linux can be made to run with alternatives to GNU. Putting GNU first is putting the cart before the horse.

I love them all, man.

Let me put it this way. The Linux distro I use has something like 80,000 packages available. There are fewer than 400 GNU packages. I do not want to argue about this. Here is the list of GNU packages from the GNU project itself: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.en.html#allgnupkgs

That means that GNU represents less than one percent of the packages available in my distro.

The most common software license used by these 80,000 packages is MIT ( not the GPL ).

The next distro I want to switch to, Chimera Linux, has essentially no GNU software in the default install. Not even the Core Utils, the C library, or the compiler.

I respect the FSF. I highly value the historical role of the GNU Project ( specifically GCC and Glibc ). Despite that, I find the term GNU / Linux inaccurate and infuriating. It is arrogant and the appropriation is disrespectful to the immense contributions of thousands of others ( those not affiliated with the GNU project ).

In 1992, before anybody used the term GNU / Linux or GNU+Linux, this may have been a defensible label to use ( if still a bit obnoxious ). These days, it is nothing but false propaganda.

They’re both so good, I can’t choose.

Gee And You

I like Ubuntu