that old GNU/Linux argument
olivares14031 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 28 17:29:37 UTC 2008
> > I care about freedom, I just do not care for the GNU
> > itself to Linux
> That's a decision that Linux developers made very early
> on in their
> project. They just decided to deny it to fool you. And
> yet, you side
> with them.
That is how I knew about it, When I used my first Linux distribution I saw Mandrake Linux, Red Hat Linux 8.0. Then later and only later I saw Knoppix GNU/Linux which was based on Debian GNU/Linux.
> > Accepting that would be to accept other projects
> Name any other that is as essential for the system and that
> is bigger
> than GNU. The question is not who would want it, the
> question is who
> is entitled to it.
Xorg, is one that comes to mind. I would say GNOME, but it is under GNU
GNU Object Model Environment, so it fall under GNU. If I use KDE, it will be a smaller part of GNU, but GNU still is in there. Just like the warning on some intel computers, Intel Inside!, Linux Distributions should warn (GNU Inside)
> > You have not given up in pushing that name, GNU/Linux,
> it is already
> > there, what more do you want?
> I wouldn't settle for less than equal mention wherever
> Linux is not
> being used to name what it is: a kernel.
The people are the ones that named it and it was not me. Why are they so upset that the Linux name is more popular? That is not my problem.
> > RMS is the one requesting this
> I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm
> doing this here.
But you are under his jurisdiction, He is the leader of the FSF/GNU. He is obviously in command.
> 2006 is quite late. The campaign to rename GNU to Linux
> started at
> least 14 years before. The reaction started at least 12
> years before.
IT is not my FAULT that they have not succeeded or are not succeeding :(
Only Debian and a few others have caved in to those requests. Not even Ubuntu which is based on Debian call themselves Ubuntu GNU/Linux is that an insult to the Debian and GNU camps?
> >> always have been: on the operating system that
> people chose to run
> >> on top of the kernel Linux.
> > People did not choose it to run on top of the linux
> And yet, that's what they're doing to this date.
> > they wanted the HURD kernel,
> Different set of people.
> > but since it did not meet the needs of the people,
> Fallacious use of 'people' to refer to two
> different sets.
> > they wrapped around the GNU utilities on top of that
> kernel created
> > by Linus Torvalds, that could have been named Freax,
> Yeah, the kernel could have been named Freax. Then
> they'd have
> renamed the GNU operating system to Freaks.
Nope, by the arguments they would have named it GNU/Freaks in honor of the GNU guys who deserve the credit too.
> And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating
> system. If it was just
> "the GNU utilities", you might be right. *BSD do
> that, and it would
> be just silly to ask *BSD to be named GNU/*BSD just because
> of a few
But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more sense to attach to a more successful project.
> *BSD are complete operating systems. Linux is
> just a
> kernel, that depends on and uses the rest of the GNU
> operating system.
> That's the difference.
When you download Linux distributions, you download all the goodies. You do not download just the kernel. Whether it depends on the other utilities, it does, but Linux Distributions include that and they call themselves Linux Distributions not GNU/Linux Distributions with the excepion of Debian GNU/Linux.
> > Instead of asking the users of Linux ($ uname -o), to
> give credit,
> > why not ask the distributions themselves?
> Sure, why not? How did this sub-thread started, do you
> Mentioning that Fedora presented itself on its web site as
> Linux-based, rather than GNU+Linux-based. So, yes, asking
> distributions. And at the same time spreading awareness
> about GNU and
> freedom, which is the whole point anyway.
Fedora is not free as you have said so yourself. So I am not running a free GNU/Linux distribution. Why should I say Fedora GNU/Linux if it is not pure and it has bad stuff?
Stuff that does not make sense to me or to many other users. Yet your buddies still leech off Fedora and get their guidelines off the Fedora site and definitions and not endorse Fedora as a Free OS. That is not cool :(
/* this thread is better discussed on list, off-list does not make sense! The horse has been beaten to death, yet it still kicks back and comes back once in a while */
More information about the fedora-list