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?

      • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        9·
        10 days ago

        Good point. I’ve just gotten used to the fact that gnu-everything is required to compile gnu-anything, both gnuseful and gnuseless, but you eventually realize that you have the wrong version of gnu-something. So I stopped caring after dicking around with dependency resolutionfor far too long to make it work. Gnu is like furniture (Gnurniture) to me - it’s just there, and the less I have to think about it living in my gnuserspace, the better.

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    8·
    10 days ago

    If just saying Linux confuses you, just say Linux distro and / or Linux kernel explicitly.

    To me, Linux means Linux distro unless further clarification or comedy is given. If you mean the kernel, you should always say so—the Linux kernel.

    Non-technical users have no idea what the kernel is and you are not going to talk to them about it. So, when you say Linux they think Linux distro. It is not confusing unless we make it that way.

  • Scoopta@programming.dev
    2·
    10 days ago

    Maybe it’s just me but it feels like calling it anything other than Linux is just an UHM, ACKTUALLY. And that’s saying something because I’m one of the most pedantic people I know.