@BionicNigga @romin >he himself was originally opposed to the name “Linux” because he perceived it as too egoistical
Yes, even Linus realized what a cult of personality "Linux" is.

It is possible for a cult of personality to be formed even if the leader was originally opposed to the praise.

>is just an asinine attempt to generate moral outrage about something that literally no one would care about otherwise.
Moral outrage? I don't see how pointing something out that is occurring is meant to cause an outrage.

>if not Unix, what do you think the X (“requisite” in his words) stands for?
It doesn't stand for anything - it was determined that if you get Linus's name and swap the s with an x, you get a name that ends with an x and by coincidence sounds similar to Unix.

>It’s a Unix-like system ffs
No it is not.

The only 2 similarities between Linux and Unix kernels is that it uses a monolithic design and it is pro

>he was following the tradition of systems like Minix, HP-UX, etc.
No he was not.

The tradition of such systems is that you give the system a name and write the system, including a kernel, but don't give the kernel a particular name, as it's only one piece.

>it’s because they were a completely different camp with their own distinct ideology (open source vs. free software) so it simply wouldn’t make sense for them to fly the banner of a completely different movement.
"open source" did not exist until the attack on free software in 1998 and people considered themselves "Linux users" long before that.

They were using software from an existing movement, but refused to even accept that they were using such software.


>They wanted to build and get things done, not sit around masturbating over licenses and semantics, which is why we still don’t care about freetards to this day—you are autistic.
Building and getting things done would constitute working with GNU to get those things done, rather than refusing to do so.

It wouldn't have been the slightest bit possible to write Linux without GNU.

I was professionally diagnosed not autistic.

>As for confusing names, people understand “Linux” and “open source” just fine
People DO NOT. They are confused.

They think Linux is an OS and they think "open source" means that the source code is publicly available.

>confusing nomenclature is pretty much the FSF’s speciality. “GNU’s not Unix”
There is nothing confusing about a such a statement - GNU is not Unix.

People understand it quite well when you tell them GNU is an OS that was written to replace the proprietary Unix OS.

>“free software” that isn’t necessarily free in the sense most people think of
People may not know what free means, but they immediately understand when you tell them that free means freedom.

>“GIMP”
It's the GNU Image Manipulation Program or GNU IMP.

>how they insist on renaming things like “Secure Boot” as “Restricted Boot”
"Secure Boot" intentionally misleads people into thinking it's about security, but it fact it is about restricting boot, which people do understand.

>“Software as a Service” as “Service as a Software Substitute” (which breaks the acronym)
"SaaS" is not used - it's SaaSS - the former intends to confuse the user, the latter advises the user what is occurring.

>“Digital Restrictions Management” instead of “Digital Rights Management”
DRM is about digital restrictions, not about "rights" and therefore rectifies the confusion of the user.