On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That the non-surprising meaning of GNU/Linux would be if the GNU > project packaged a distribution themselves with a Linux kernel.
No, that would be something like GNU GNU/Linux, or GNU GNU+Linux. I.e., the GNU+Linux distribution maintained by the GNU project. > They don't and any other use of the name doesn't make much sense. What's the logic behind your demand that the GNU name be attached only to a distribution created by the GNU project itself? By a similar logic, if Linux named an operating system (like GNU), it could only be attached to the name of a distribution published by Linus Torvalds. Like I suggested in the beginning of the thread, could folks please check arguments against GNU/ in the name to see whether they don't apply equally to /Linux? This could save a lot of time, bandwidth and embarrassment. > I credit (blame?) RedHat for the bulk of the early work on Linux, The timing doesn't look right. Back then I was running GNU stuff still mostly on SunOS 4.3 and Solaris 2, but I remember some colleagues at the uni who got into the GNU/Linux bandwagon earlier than myself and who carried around huge stacks of floppies, and I'm pretty sure Red Hat wasn't even in the map back then. It was probably Slackware or Yggdrasil. That was probably Summer 1993/94 (Southern hemisphere, so that's 1993 EOY). Red Hat started around that time-frame, and Red Hat [GNU/]Linux 1.0 came up only in late 1994. You're probably right that Red Hat gave GNU/Linux some polish that even enthusiasts needed, but it started 3 years into Linux's history and 11 years into GNU's history, so I don't think we're talking about the same kind of early. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list