"Fedora Linux" Is The Latest Change Proposed For F35

[skeevy420]

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You and ssokolow show that Linux or the kernel used doesn't necessarily need to be part of the OS name. Debian doesn't go by Debian Linux, they're just Debian. Windows 10 Pro doesn't go by Windows 10 Pro NT 8675309. Android isn't Android 15 Fruit Flavored Edible Underwear BSD+MIT-GPL/Linux. Arch Linux doesn't....OK, bad example....

[drjohnnyfever]

So I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I think there is some merit to the whole GNU+Linux argument, even though that is horribly clunky and it's never going to catch on with anyone except Richard Stallman.

For practical purposes at the most basic level the ABI of the system is a combination of the libc and the kernel. On systems like FreeBSD this is explicitly the case. On Linux it is a bit blurrier because in theory you are supposed to be able to run any kernel newer than what libc was built against and it is all supposed to work all the time. So the Linux kernel guys consider that the ABI. Meanwhile the Glibc guys are sort of doing the same thing up in their layer, and they see the C library as defining the ABI.

When people say Linux they generally mean some type of distro, usually with Glibc, maybe musl, with a Linux kernel and maybe systemd or sysvinit, or something to that effect. We all sort of know what they are talking about.

But in the case of the Linux kernel itself, it is used in systems where the system really doesn't look like "Linux". Android for instance is arguably a different thing than a "traditional Linux distro" (Granted you can make android act a lot like a traditional distro.) And there are others, with custom C libraries that aren't standards compliant, or systems using the Linux kernel with a totally different library interface grafted on top that doesn't use malloc/free and has weird custom replacement system call wrappers.

Alternatively, for purposes of comparison, consider the old Debian/kFreeBSD project. That was essentially a port of the Debian userland on to a FreeBSD kernel. Basically Debian Linux without the Linux. Hopefully nobody here would consider that to be "FreeBSD". It is clearly a different thing than FreeBSD proper. It is Debian + FreeBSD in the same way 'normal debian' is Debian + Linux.

Anyway, my argument is that calling anything that uses the Linux kernel "Linux" full stop does a bit of a disservice to the variety of systems out there; but I'm obviously being pretty pedantic.

[You-]

I think the only correct answer is to include the complete package list in the name.

[pkunk]

Fedora(systemd+glibc+Linux)

[angrypie]

OK, serious answer: why not rescue the "Fedora Core" name?

[wizard69]

OK, serious answer: why not rescue the "Fedora Core" name?

Because "Linux" has real play in the larger world. Use the phrase "Fedora Core" and people will look at you funny. Even Debian would be better off attaching Linux to their name. It is just a reality that Linux has meaning to a lot of people that are not deep into open source and alternative operating systems. I mean really how much traction does Zorin or Peppermint, get with you right now?

[skeevy420]

OK, serious answer: why not rescue the "Fedora Core" name?

Possible confusion with Fedora CoreOS is my guess.

[torsionbar28]

Defora Lunix

[Templar82]

I like it, I would call it that if were talking to most people anyway for clarity.

[Neuro-Chef]

I’d just like to interject for a moment.

Tyrone, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Qftb2O--Y
Enjoy!