On Dec 7, 4:29 am, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:35:41AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > >> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > >> [...] > >> > No, Linux is a kernel, you can get all of it in a single tar ball at > >> >http://www.kernel.org/ ... you know, neat packages called > >> > linux-VERSION.tar.bz2 (for instance). > > >> Have you ever visited that site, mini-RMS? > > >>http://www.kernel.org/ > > >> <quote> > > >> What is Linux? > > >> Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch > >> by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers > >> across the Net. > > >> </quote> > > > Yes, I know the Linux developers are from a school of belief where the > > operating system is the kernel, your point? > > Actually, there is no consistent school of belief involved in quotes > like the above that take all credit and warp history: they talk about > "the operating system Unix" (though Unix is a well-known and partly > standardized entity including a lot of userland) and say that "Linux" > (which is all they ever talk about) is in the same ballpark and was > written from scratch by Linus "with assistance". > > It is exactly history-mongering quotes like this that forced Richard > Stallman to come up with a plan of countering this sort of revisionism. > And in the wake of that, some "schools of belief" were made up to clad > this revisionism with a layer of legitimacy. But in the above > quotation, it is still rather bare. >
Hmm, so does this mean that the reason why GNU deserves credit in the _name_ and not somewhere else is because GNU's contribution is so significant -- they pretty much built most of the rest of the system? And perhaps also to counter such historical revisionism? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss