On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Huan Truong <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:30 -0500, "iosif" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> should be GNU/Linux :) > > I remember I've read something about this on Linux Hater's Blog (btw, > LHB is a good one) but can't recall. > > So take the following with some sort of humor. Not as enjoyable as LHB > but the following's the best I can find. > > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16843&cid=1941648 > > - Is GCC critical to Linux? All of the following are able to compile the > kernel. > > LLVM http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/011711.html > TCC http://bellard.org/tcc/ > ICC http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-compilers/ > > Btw, I'm trying to get 2.6.36 compiled with icc (someone claimed that it > was possible without any patch > http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1832598&cid=33974198 ) but I > personally wasn't able to. They said icc makes it run 20% faster. Not a > bad deal.
Well any distro your using will be using gcc and glibc though. The real reason why asking for GNU/Linux is unreasonable is because the reasoning is that GNU is such an essential part of the operating system that it needs credit. But it ignores the modern definition of a operating system certainly includes the services provided by X (which still manages device drivers for video cards, if thats not "OS" then I don't know what is) and arguably also the API and services provided by KDE or Gnome. So if you are going to say GNU/Linux, you should also call the OS used by Ubuntu "GNU/Linux/X/Gnome". Or you could just call it Linux. :) Ian ----------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to [email protected] with Subject: unsubscribe -----------------------------------------------------------------
