that old GNU/Linux argument

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
>> Not only is Linux just one implementation of the more or less
>> standard Unix/Posix system call interface that predates it, but so
>> is GNU libc just another implementation of the pre-existing standard
>> c library specification and sensibly written programs have no
>> dependencies on any specific implementations of these standards.
> 
> You're talking API.  I wrote ABI.

But that's just an artifact of where the program is compiled.

> I'm talking of running the so-called Linux *binary* applications on
> top of GNU libc on top of any other kernel GNU libc can target while
> exporting the same ABI it exports when targeting the kernel Linux.

If they were compiled under cygwin/mingwin they could be windows 
binaries.  That doesn't justify changing their name.

>> From his description you might think that it would make sense to say
>> GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail
> 
> You could call the binaries Apache/GNU and sendmail/GNU, indeed,
> because they're built for (and actually carry pieces of) the GNU
> operating system.  But no pieces of Linux whatsoever.

But that's like the water/beer argument mentioned earlier.  You don't 
name something after an ingredient that is generic and adds no character.

> But yes, that's an unrelated point.  It doesn't matter what other
> applications you install on an operating system, that doesn't change
> what the operating system is.  You can install OOo, Ff, Cygwin, etc on
> MS-Windows, and even distribute them all together, but the operating
> system underneath is still MS-Windows.  Why should a different
> criterium be applied to GNU+Linux?

The 'operating system' is Linux.  The other components are mostly not 
operating system specific.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com