Re: FAQ confusing terminology regarding GNU and Linux Relationship

[Bob Proulx]

address@hidden wrote:
> Under the section in the FAQ about uname, it refers to ``the Linux
> kernel." Is not the GNU position that Linux should be referred to as
> ``Linux, the kernel' or something similar?

Thank you for asking!  It gives us a chance to talk. :-)

An exact phrasing is not required.  It is only important that the
different parts be correctly identified.

In English the phrasing of, "Due to the peculiarities of the Linux
kernel ..." reads naturally and we have identified the kernel that we
are talking about.  If one were to say, "Due to the peculiarities of
Linux, the kernel, ..." it would not be a natural phrasing order and
would imply that Linux has multiple parts, of which one part is the
kernel part, but there are also other parts.  That is not what is
being intended to be said.  The implication of that phrasing might be,
"Linux, the editor, ..." or some such when there is no Linux editor
that I am aware.  Therefore we use the natural order most of the time.
This is just the same as when we say things like "the Emacs editor" or
"the Vim editor" or other things of which there are many editors and
we wish to identify one of them.

The important point there is to properly indicate what is providing
the uname(3) system call information.  In that case it is talking
about the Linux kernel uniquely.  Which is distinct from a BSD kernel,
or an HP-UX kernel, or an AIX kernel, or a Solaris kernel, or any of
the other kernels that also exist and often run GNU Project software
such as GNU coreutils.  There is also a Debian implementation running
a FreeBSD kernel with a GNU userland running GNU coreutils!  Each
kernel provides different information that they have chosen.  The GNU
uname(1) command is simply displaying it.

Please refer to the GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman for more details
concerning use, and the reasoning behind it, of these terms.

  https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

Bob