On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:46:00AM -0800, mike3 wrote: > I do not see the reason why "GNU/Linux" should be preferred over just > "Linux" to refer to the system.
Hi, you can get *all* of Linux at http://www.kernel.org/ For a few examples of GNU/Linux, check Debian GNU/Linux, Red Hat Enterprise [GNU/]Linux, Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux, etc... > The arugment seems to be that the GNU > project, which contributed a great deal to the Free operating system > called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", should get credited for these > contributions in the name. There is nothing wrong with giving credit > -- in fact, it should be done. But in a NAME? Does this mean we have > to name movies, books, etc. even all computer software out there, in > such a way as to credit the creators and contributors? There are other > ways to do that, you know. I do not understand why *names* are the > appropriate place to give credit. What's the reason, anyway? Hi Toad, I guess I can call you Toad instead of Mike, after all, what is it about names that matters? Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 47th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss