Why "GNU/Linux" is a Misnomer

There is no GNU/Linux distribution.

The only appropriate use of the term "GNU/Linux" would be for a Linux distribution released under the auspices of the GNU project. Since no such distribution actually exists, the term "GNU/Linux" is a complete misnomer.

Sorry, an FTP archive does not a distribution make. If it did, no distribution maker would get any attention, since everyone would go to the FTP archives and get everything from the source. In real life, nobody wants to do that to create a complete system, and most people lack the skills and determination to bootstrap a system entirely from scratch this way. (And for those who do, their systems might be most accurately described as "custom Unix-like systems", although they would more likely be described as "custom Linux systems" now.)

The avowed goal of the GNU project is to create a complete system which is like Unix, but not proprietary. The packaging of a distribution is an essential part of creating a complete system. Without a distribution, you don't have a complete system; it is just as important as the kernel itself. A complete system must form a cohesive whole. To point at a jumble of diverse components and describe them as a "complete system" is delusional at best. All of Stallman's prevarications aside, the kernel was not the "last piece" missing from "the GNU system". (If this were true, why didn't the GNU project release "GNU/Linux" immediately when the Linux kernel became available?)

The GNU project has yet to produce a complete system. If and when the GNU project releases a distribution of the GNU operating system based on the Linux kernel, it will be fully appropriate to call that distribution "GNU/Linux". Similarly, a GNU distribution based on the Hurd kernel would be appropriate to name "GNU/Hurd".

The GNU project has no right to dictate the choice of names for distributions made by others. Given how obsessed RMS is with issues of freedom, it is quite ironic that he doesn't afford distribution makers the freedom to name their distributions, or the marketplace the freedom to choose generic names.

Linux distribution makers have chosen to use the term "Linux" in all their distribution names for name recognition reasons. This was not done to unfairly bestow credit on the Linux kernel out of proportion to its contribution to the entire system, as RMS appears to believe. Rather, this is entirely an issue of marketing for the complete distribution.

Whether RMS likes it or not, "Linux" is a more marketable name than "GNU" is. This is partly because RMS cares more about adherence to his ideals than appeasing the market. (This is not necessarily a bad thing.) This is partly because the recursive nature of the "GNU's Not Unix" acronym isn't very appealing to the general public, being both confusing and rather "cutesy" at the same time.

Mostly,"Linux" wins from a marketing perspective simply because it is very reminiscent of "Unix", itself a bizarre name that nonetheless carries considerable name recognition in the marketplace, due to the distinguished record acquired by Unix systems of all flavors over the years. Since Linux is "Unix-like", this is a good and appropriate connotation, as well as being marketable. Marketing is about perception, not fairness.

It is disingenuous in the extreme for RMS to insist that all Linux distributions should be referred to as "GNU/Linux". By doing so, RMS manages to present himself as childish and petulant, eroding much of the credibility he had built up through years of dedication and hard work. It reinforces the image of an inflexible zealot, which encourages people to discount his contributions rather than acknowledging them.

Yes, the GNU tools form an essential piece of a typical Linux distribution. The Linux kernel itself is essential. The X Windows system is essential. BSD-derived code is essential. The packaging of the distribution itself is essential. Many components of the system are essential, and none of that matters when it comes to the name.

The name of a distribution is the exclusive perogative of its creator. Just as Linus Torvalds has the perogative of naming the Linux kernel despite his admission that most of the lines of code come from contributions, so does Red Hat have the perogative of naming their distribution "Red Hat Linux", regardless of where the greatest contribution may lie.

RMS has no cause to complain. X Windows is not credited in the GNU name because it has been "adopted" by the GNU project, and is therefore considered to be implicitly credited. In fact, the GNU project "adopted" as many components as possible, and only rewrote what was necessary to fill in the gaps.

What RMS has willfully ignored is that most Linux distributions have "adopted" many GNU components to fill in the gaps to create a complete system, exactly as the GNU project "adopted" what was already available. By the same logic, the GNU project is implicitly credited, as is X Windows. The choice of a name for the overall distribution remains strictly a marketing decision, not a recognition of credit due or most significant contributor.

The upshot of all this? The term Linux distribution (or simply Linux) is entirely appropriate to refer to generic distributions based on Linux. Not because of the relative importance of the kernel to the overall system, but because "Linux" is the only term common in the names of all Linux distributions. Therefore, it is the most appropriate generic designation, and "GNU/Linux" is the misnomer that should be suppressed.