I’ve been thinking about the best way to refer to systems that use the Linux kernel, whilst avoiding the confusions that come with using the latter for both meanings. Since there are GNU and non-GNU (e.g, Alpine Linux) systems, I assume that *Linux would cover both. However, for users without a technical background, the asterisk means much less than it does to developers — this seems self-deprecating, considering that the point of the suggested term is to avoid confusion for NON-TECHNICAL users. Am I overthinking?
No, we shouldn’t, and yes, you’re overthinking, but I am finding myself inching closer to the GNU argument for the desktop/server OS, as I now not only use phone/Linux, but also a bunch of Kubernetes/Linux, with distroless images. It’s all using the Linux kernel, and possibly glibc, but it’s not Linux as we know it. The desktop/server OS meanwhile might not have GNU coreutils in some years.
But realistically we’ve been using Linux as the name for the family of desktop and server OS-es for decades now, and if you need to refer to the Linux kernel you call it “the Linux kernel” or just “the kernel”.
Earlier GNU wanted HURD as an alternative to the Linux kernel—same GNU OS, different kernel. What instead is happening is that we’re keeping the Linux kernel but replacing the GNU part of the OS.
Generally you just need to give as much information as the recipient needs to understand your message. Excess signals that don’t add information are what information theory calls noise.