On 11/10/06 16:11 +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote: > 2006/10/10, Devdas Bhagat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >This is not the case with Linux. GNU tools sit at the same status as other > >applications. For most people, the GNU tools don't even matter, they run > >other applications. Most of the userland tools can be replaced with > >busybox too. > > > > Busybox doesn't give you a compiler, libraries. I dont agree that GNU > sits with other applications. Other applications don't exist without
BSD. They require gcc, but everything else is non GNU. As far as I am concerned, GNU is _one_ component of my system. A lot of other components use the GNU toolchain to exist, but practically, if those applications didn't exist, I might as well not use the computer. So me crediting just GNU would be wrong. IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux would be acceptable (off the top of my head, those are the licenses used by software on my system). > GNU. *Can you explain how they can exist without GNU?* If this > dependency is claimed falsely, I will correct myself. In fact most of > the applications, including GNU exist without Linux, because they can > depend on other kernels. As I said, they are userland. And if GNU gets credit, everyone else who makes my desktop experience useful gets credit too. > > >I am not. I am reading it specifically as a branding issue, where the > >FSF is actually losing ground by insisting on the term GNU/Linux. No one > >part of the userland should claim dominance over the whole. > > Your perception that GNU is userland is dubious. In order to prove > otherwise, you have to explain the above question. > Everything that is not kernelspace is userland. This includes libc. As the GNU folks themselves say, Linux by itself is just a kernel. Devdas Bhagat -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
