Let me shamelessly indulge in this bikeshedding discussion: Omar Radwan <toxemicsqui...@gmail.com> writes: > But it's not the real GNU kernel, so it would still have to be called > GNU/Linux-libre, or GNU/Linux.
Depends on whether we're talking about a "brand name" or "project name" of sorts, or a "technical name." Even if the kernel component or any other number of components are individually maintained by third parties, the effort/project of bundling them together can alone justify giving the resulting OS a wholly different name. That would be the brand/project name, akin to Fedora, CentOS, or Ubuntu. (And also bad choices like "Arch Linux", "Gentoo Linux", etc. They can justify themselves by saying that they chose that name for the project.) The "technical" name is indeed GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux for all these systems (with a suitable prefix or suffix to indicate the exact configuration as well as any extra components), because those two projects together provide figuratively 95% of all components *necessary* to boot up and normally use the system (even if without X11 and without many fancy programs, but at least with the POSIX toolbox). I think it's a good idea to go with the GNU brand name. But many people will intuitively desire a more technical name, like "Guix GNU/Linux," naturally shortened to "Guix"... I'm not sure if there's much we can do about it, since "GNU" is awfully prone to confusion too so people will avoid it. To at least prevent confusion between the package manager and The GNU System, we could sanction calling the latter GuixOS as an alternative? Taylan
