-- Ed Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] Taxi (I need an income) GNU/Linux (I can afford a Free OS) Think this through with me, let me know your mind... Hunter/Garcia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 21:41:28 -0700 (MST) From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GNU Stuff Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Would you please forward this to the list?] we all know where <*some of*> the software comes from. My experience is that most users of the GNU/Linux system have never even heard of GNU. The people in Justin's circle may be partially knowledgeable; they may know that certain programs were developed by the GNU Project. That doesn't mean they have the right picture of where the system came from. It is hard for people to learn the right picture when the materials they read tell them the wrong picture. That's why I ask EUGLUG to call the system "GNU/Linux" and help correct the widespread mistake. get off your ego-trip and take what you're given. I am not a Buddha. I do have an ego, and it is surely gratified to see people mention GNU. But my ego is not the issue--the issue is to do the right thing. What matters is for users to know that the system is the practical result of idealism--it was developed primariby in a sustained campaign for freedom. Waiting for something to be given is not the way to succeed--not in business, not in science, and not in social change. Success calls for active efforts. Correcting misinformation calls for active efforts, too. as far as sharing the limelight, which i'm sure will be brought up, let's point out that without Linus, you wouldn't have a strong vehicle from which to promote your stance. Linus made a significant contribution to that system. That's one of the reasons to call it "GNU/Linux" and not just "GNU". > The one thing that I didn't understand tho, is why RMS is marketing GNU > as an operating system. We are not "marketing" GNU at all--it is not a commercial product, it is a community project. We describe GNU as an operating system because that was the target. >From day one, when no code existed, the goal was to develop an operating system. Everything we have done for GNU has been aimed at this goal. This practice is perfectly normal, but I've noticed that people who want to call the system "Linux" often criticize perfectly normal things that we do. Various perfectly normal things. Meanwhile, they don't criticize others who do the same things. Apparently these things are wrong only when the GNU Project does them. So I'm a little taken back. I would think that > the technical term for an "operating system" would be something along > the lines of "everything you need to run a computer". I would think > that any operating system that is lacking a kernel and a boot/install > process is not really an operating system at all. It was an unfinished operating system. Anything you build starts out unfinished. When we started developing GNU, it was missing almost everything. By 1991, much less was missing. By the way, the GNU kernel is working now. There is even a GNU/Hurd User Group listed in our user groups page. > the GNU site about why it needs to be called GNU/Linux and what the > relation is between GNU and Linux I wasn't too surprised to feel the > same recognition jealousy. It makes no sense to give so much importance to my personal feelings. There are more important things at stake here. EUGLUG should call the system by the right name in order to inform the users of the real origin of the system.
