Some questions....

[r]

1.The linux we use today, is it simply linux or GNU/Linux?
2.Is linux an OS or a kernel?(I have read that linus torvalds initially developed linux based on minix which is an OS)
3.What OS does linus torvalds use?

[arochester]

You say potato I say potato. (Somehow it doesn't look so good in print!)

1) It's contentious. Some say Linux and others say (like Richard Stallman) GNU/Linux.
2) It's contentious. Some say the OS and others say the kernel only.
3) Linux Torvalds did use Fedora but now seems to favour Linux Mint with an Xfce Desktop. http://ostatic.com/blog/does-linus-run-linux-mint

[r]

3) Linux Torvalds did use Fedora but now seems to favour Linux Mint with an Xfce Desktop. http://ostatic.com/blog/does-linus-run-linux-mint

He still uses fedora , its said so in the comment section

And about my other two questions its still a debate , I guess.

[BlueDaisy]

Actually, both claims are false. When Torvalds got mad about Fedora, he switched to OpenSUSE. However, he got angry about OpenSUSE for asking for a root password on questionable things...

http://www.muktware.com/news/3360/li...angry-opensuse

You'll see other articles on this too. Now what does he run? I have no clue, and he's still searching...

[woodsmoke]

I find it somewhat amusing.....perplexing..... amazing.....

That Torvalds does not roll his own.

I mean.....I have rolled my own twice, so.....

woodsmoke

[Snowhog]

I don't smoke, so I don't 'roll' any.

[BlueDaisy]

... "rolled his own?"

You mean create his own linux distribution from some minimal install (like arch, ubuntu core, or gentoo)??

[BlueDaisy]

Uh oh, another simultanious post that time! I didn't mean that! now i feel very stupid...

[woodsmoke]

Oh you GUUUUYYYYSSSSS!!!!

BTW I have NEVER done Mary Jane or any other hallucinogenic drug......

I find that my own reveries are much MORE imaginative than those I observed with the drug addled "convenience to the service" people who were booted out from the U.S. Navy when I was in.

Yes, I mean built it with DIY and Arch.

Both of which were more work than they were worth.

But....more to the point....one would think that "he who started it all / he who has had many years to do it" could kind of, maybe, possibly, don't know....tried building his own version...

to which he could "allude" .....mysteriously........ and NEVER LET ANYONE ELSE SEE......

but no....he picks and chooses....kind of like is being done with certain industries that are so detested of the elite.... today..in the U.S.....

or.............he RANTS.......

I mean....if we had someone rant here at the forum....

one needs to put that into context....

a rant here.................would occupy maybe fifty lines of text.....

a SINGLE LINE OF RANT....from Torvalds would equal fifty lines of rant from the normal troll....

So....why does he rant....?

When, he ....supposedly...........could.....roll his own....

I mean... really....

Not that I am implying that there are feet of clay beside the postern....but....really.......

just a thought, I am not Torvalds, I could NOT DO WHAT HE HAS DONE..... I am merely a whisp of smoke...
woodsmoke

[BlueDaisy]

Thank Goodness that i was on the right track there...

Yes, I also think he should just try to build an arch installation, or if he really thinks he could make a better distribution than the 300+ out there, he should make one following the "linux from scratch" booklet (not making that up) maybe then he could really learn the difficulties of creating a distribution from his own invention!

As for me, I tried doing an arch installion once. I got a desktop environment running, but I couldn't configure a display manager to save my life - I had to use a terminal just to log in to the desktop. It's a nightmare that scared me from distributions like that.

[woodsmoke]

lol you CAUGHT me...

too many rum 'n cokes!

not DIY but LFS

lol......

woodsmoke

[SecretCode]

The true, complete and correct answer (because I know everything ) is this:

Formally Linux is a kernel, not an operating system, and GNU is a project to create an operating system but is really only collection of system and command-line tools as it doesn't have a kernel - and does not offer a full GUI. GNU includes coreutils, which are pretty much essential in any Unix-like OS, and the build tool chain that itself is essential for building Linux. The GNU project has also been working on Hurd, an alternative to the Linux kernel (making a GNU/Hurd OS) ... but I don't think anyone really uses it.

Richard M Stallman insists on the term "GNU/Linux" for the combination.

Pretty much everyone else uses "Linux" to mean the full OS combining the Linux kernel, the GNU utilities, and the desktop or server components running on a particular machine and/or provided through a particular distro - thus including the "LAMP" stack, the Gnome and KDE desktops, and all the other DEs and WMs out there.

[r]

Thank you SC for these answers, one more question
why isnt any of the buntus ,debian ,fedora or arch or mint not listed in the list of free os in their website(one derivative of fedora is listed). Is it because they includes proprietary drivers?