On Dec 5, 1:55 pm, "Noah Slater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why not call it an "Aston Martin DB9/Ford VH", then? <giggle> > > Because the brand name will do, just like "Ubuntu" by it's self. >
But you seemed to imply the more "technically correct" name should be used. > > It seems then there is an alternative (or not?) viewpoint here > > Not really, RMS doesn't claim it is for "getting credit" so I think > you may be confused a little. > Then what's all this stuff about "getting credit" related to _naming_? Yes, maybe I am confused. But then what about this?: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html "When we ask people to say "GNU/Linux", we are not dividing people. ***We are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating system.*** This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away. " (emphasis mine) So why does credit have to be given through names? That is what I am having trouble with. > > So then why insist that the name used commonly _should_ be > > GNU/Linux? > > One can but hope. :) > > > What about GNU/BSD where you run the GNU stuff with a > > BSD kernel? > > That would work. > > > Also, what's the rub on "GNU/Hurd" when the Hurd kernel *is* GNU? > > It should just be "GNU"! > > Yes, "GNU" would do just fine in that situation. > > > So then why not call the MacOS X a Darwin/XNU, then? > > You could. OS X is it's brand name, like "Ubuntu" > > > Is it also possible to make a Darwin/GNU system? > > Possibly, but I think you mean GNU/XNU. :) > Ah, OK. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss