On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 14:22, Jacob Fugal wrote: > I think the main distinction is between a kernel, and a full system > (such as a distribution). The linux kernel is invariably distributed > along with GNU tools. Although the kernel would still be of worth > without the tools, I believe much of what we use, both in linux and > other *nices is indeed dependent on these GNU tools. The kernel is pure > Linux. The tools (not all, but a significant portion) are GNU. So the > system is GNU/Linux. I don't think it has anything at all to do with > what Linus used to build the kernel.
You are correct. RMS's justification for his demand is that a Linux system isn't very useful without the GNU tools. That's why we should all be calling it GNU/BSD/X11/Gtk/Qt/Apache/Vim/Linux. Plus, let us not be ungrateful. Don't forget IBM/Sun/HP/Novell. And let us not forget the pioneers. From now on, it must be called Ritchie/GCC. The fact is, there has to be a reasonable limit. Far as I'm concerned, it's plain old Linux 'cause everything else is too much work to say. I respect many things Stallman has to say. He has proven himself a visionary in his own lifetime. But when it comes to the name of Linux he should just shut up. -- Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://buscaluz.org/ AIM:StuartMJansen> "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." - Albert Einstein
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
