Ubuntu the operating system takes its name from the concept that you talk about here.

That is also why the logo of Ubuntu the operating system is three people holding hands, which kind of blew my mind when I first heard about it. Prior to that I thought the logo was just some lines and circles in a pretty pattern with no specific meaning.

I believe some of Ubuntu's early marketing materials (from the days of Warty Warthog) actually depicted 3 people holding hands. See link:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/geekfeminism/images/9/94/S...

"GNU is the operating system" only makes sense when speaking about GNU Hurd or Linux-libre. The kernel is part of the OS, so in the case of ubuntu GNU can't be the operating system. But if Linux is the kernel, and GNU is part of the operating system because the OS is more than the kernel, then why is the OS GNU/Linux and not Systemd/GNU/Linux? And on Ubuntu you install most stuff with apt instead of using gcc, and use most software with X.org instead of bash, so the OS is really apt/X.org/systemd/GNU/Linux. Of course that name quickly becomes silly, it's much more practical to just call the OS Ubuntu (as that expresses a specific package selection that includes GNU, linux, and a large number of equally indispensable parts, as well as their update cadence and methodology)

Let's not forget that more than 90% of packages in Ubuntu are taken from Debian without any significant modification.

A GNU/Linux distro can be referred to as an operating system. Not sure if you are memeing or not, but in conversation going into specifics about the GNU/Linux, or GNU plus Linux as you might like to call it, distinction, is not relevant here.

And in fact, I would say that saying that “GNU is the operating system” is even incorrect. GNU plus Linux is the operating system. Neither part by itself is a complete operating system.

So, the distro is the operating system.

Ubuntu is the operating system.

What about when there is a huge length of time between the plan and the final execution? Do you just not let yourself think about it after the 7th breath? In the context of the hagakure, I suppose it would apply to battle strategy?

It applies to the process of taking the decision (to execute), not the executing itself. After the seventh breath, you don't go back to pondering on yes / no, you just proceed as decided.

I suppose one can figure out exactly how you're supposed to handle what you decided you were going to handle afterward.

Disclaimer : I am not a Samurai.

The "Hagakure" literally starts with something like "The art of the samurai lies in a way of dying. A samurai warrior enters battle as if already dead."

It also started 150 years after the last Samurai battle, during a time when the Samurai were a bureaucratic clerical class. A fantasy nostalgia written by a clerk who had never seen battle or a fight of any kind.

Given that Bakumatsu and Meiji restoration happened in the 1850s the “last Samurai fight” happened only much later. The period in question was an attempt to keep fighters in check and prevent Shogun to be overthrown.

Bushido was real, Hagakure was written by a scribe from discussions with a holder of Bushido because before that Bushido was mostly transmitted through oral tradition. That daimyo was one to challenge useless deaths such as junji, so it’s not like he was entirely a fan of the whole thing but he probably lived by Bushido very much to the core.

Put into context that looks suspiciously like an interview for historical records and persistence in writing of an oral tradition. I would not be surprised if it was published only after the daimyo’s death because he made a vow to keep this knowledge secret, which was still common up to last century (Katori Shinto Ryu was probably one of the first schools to officially break with that and share previously secret knowledge about fighting technique and philosophy)

Now, there is romanticisation of Bushido and Samurai, but mostly from 1900s imperialism and WW2 propaganda which taints our glasses very much.

The samurai died out though, where as Japan’s unchanging ancient businesses managed to remain. I wonder if quick thinking isn’t just what leads one to an early end, business, life, or otherwise.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25281164

I'm not an expert, but I've got the impression the dying out of the samurai class was pretty much because they weren't really needed any more, and such a special class wasn't really in line with the modernization and westernization efforts that were being made in Japan at the time.

Of course any endeavour can meet an early end due to carelessness or because of not stopping and considering whether what you're doing is actually a good idea. But carelessness would probably not have been held in high regard by the samurai, and I generally fail to see a simple connection between to the samurai class becoming outdated and a preference for "quick" thinking.

Yet here we are, idolizing them centuries later, while an old shop is a curiosity at best. Living long != living well.

Idolization is rooted in ignorance.

But, oddly, it is also living short != living well.

Almost as if the two are unrelated concepts.

I’d suggest that others simply have a different perspective and that your label of “quaint” is merely your own modern bias.

Edit: In other words, many people are dissatisfied with the contemporary world set up by merchants and bureaucrats. I don’t see it as misguided or quaint for them to look to the samurai ethic as a more appealing alternative. Its historical accuracy isn’t really relevant, as all history is story creation.

We don't have life all figured out in modern society either. Especially when it comes to dying (without it just being the end of a period of despair and depression), but also I'd say dealing with risk and difficulty generally.

Eastern cultures didn't really have religions universally promising to provide all the answers/solutions like western culture had, so they developed very interesting alternative ways of addressing these struggles in life.