Scott McDermott wrote:
> Would Linux/GNU OS be more appropriate? Again, these are semantic
> issues and calling Linux an OS colloquially wouldn't necessarily be
> wrong.
Now that we're officially really-off-topic:
The GNU people seem to prefer GNU/Linux (of course, they would. I'm sure
kernel developers prefer Linux/GNU). I think GNU/Linux has a nicer ring
to it, but that's just my $0.02.
(see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html)
And from Linus Torvolds in "Notes for linux release 0.01":
> Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system
> you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts
> and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the
> tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft.
> These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more
> info.
In reality, "Linux" is what people (the masses) associate with this OS,
and that's probably the name that'll stick. "RedHat Linux", "SuSE
Linux", et cetera are probably the best choices, however, since they
refer to each vendor's specific distributions (as they are each quite
unique).
Regards,
Brandt
<aside type=dumb>
If we wanted to be more like MS, we would have to squeeze X into the
name, which I'm suprised nobody has mentioned. GNU/Linux/Xfree?
X/GNU/Linux? LignuX?
</aside>
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
