2011/3/2 André Salaün <[email protected]>: > > But using only Linux because it is "common" for > uninformed people is simplistic ; as we say in French : > « l'enfer est pavé de bonnes intentions » > « the road to hell is paved with good intentions » > > Furthermore someone (like me and some others perhaps ) can be > interesting in « popular education » (éducation populaire) and > relations between free software, free sciences free... > Oversimplification of the word is always oversimplifaction of the > concept. Even if it seems to be easier I see that as a fault.
I have seen the history of GNU and Linux and their "marriage" (because the GNU people did not have any simple and free kernel for their software). So, from my point of view there's a good chance that Linux could have grown to a full operating system even without the GNU project. On the other side nobody could tell if the GNU project would have survived without Linux. Both thoughts are speculations, of course. But would a GNU/Linux naming policy not neglect the merits of all the other projects who actually made the "Gnu/Linux" system a real usable package? Imagine a distribution only supplying Linux and what remains from the GNU project (especially Emacs) - would any user actually use it (except developpers and "tech freaks")? I serioously doubt that this kind of package would never have made it out of the university and research labs environment, let alone conquer the business world. So much about the real value of Stallman's demand from my POV. I do not want to belittle his and the GNU project's merits but I want to set proportions right. I remember discussing this with Maddog Hall a couple of years ago (must have been in 2005). Now Maddog seems to be a somewhat biased "friend" of RMS from the stories he tells. He sees both sides but also said that he thinks Stallmann is exaggerating about this. :) -- wobo
