On Saturday 02 February 2002 23:16, Linux Rocks ! wrote: <header snipage>
> Since your on the > topic of the right thing to do, shouldnt you change all your references > of GNU/Linux to Linux/GNU, since GNU wouldnt be much without linux? > > Both parts are essential. The GNU/Linux system wouldn't run without > Linux, and it wouldn't run without GNU. So if we apply your standard > fairly, it is inconclusive. yes, one could easily get into the chicken/egg argument. could you use GNU w/out linux? could you use linux w/out GNU? which came first the linux kernel or the compiler that made the linux kernel? Its really moot... > > We write the "GNU" first because we launched the system's development, > and our contribution to it is much larger than Linux is. However, if > you write "Linux/GNU", that is much better than just "Linux". Thats as good a reason as any i suppose. Personally I cant imagine how someone could understand much about linux without not knowing about GNU. > > There is not GNU kernel, > > There is now, but there wasn't one in the 90s. That's why the GNU/Linux > variant of GNU is the one that caught on during that period. cool... I may have to try it sometime. > > and you need to boot the linux kernel to take advantage of the > GNU software included with every [GNU/]linux distribution... > > The reverse is also true--Linux, being just a kernel, wouldn't run > without the GNU system. The combination of the two is what you use. > That is why the name GNU/Linux is appropriate for it. then when Redhat includes tools for install, its redhat/linux/gnu, and when mandraike improves on redhats tools, its mandrake/redhat/linux/gnu, And If I make a distro with mandrake, its rocksolidnetworks/mandrake/redhat/linux/gnu. Can you see how this becomes cumbersome? Nobody wants to diminish GNU, or the work that has been contributed. The documentation for rocksolidnetworks distribution would need to include mandrake info, redhat info, linux info, and GNU info, but should it be included in *every* reference to rocksolidnetworks distro? > > What is most noteworthy in your message is that you are selectively > applying your arguments. Over the years I've seen this many times. I > think it results from the attachment that people develop to the false > picture of history spread by calling the system "Linux". They are > sure that the kernel is more important than all the rest of the system > put together, but they have to improvise to find some reason why that > should be so. Often the reason comes down to a double standard. blah blah blah... Its not like you didnt completely and selectivly delete sections of my mail that I sent to you. So... how about that oatmeal. Was the reference too obscure? or was it to accute? If the oatmeal company didnt hire writers and wilford brimley to say "its the right thing to do", you wouldnt be able to capitalize on the impact of the statement, but you did not give credit to the oatmeal company, or wilford... I wonder what wilford would think is the ":right thing to do", He might say that he and the oatmeal company should be given credit when others use that expression. Personally, I think that the euglug website should have good gnu info on it, but I dont think that we need to change every reference of linux or gnu. Jamie > > If you would like to subscribe to our list, > > Thanks, but I get too much email already. epcraig, if I mail to the > list and it bounces, do you get those messages? Can you send them > through? Or should I cc you? > > -------------------------------------------------------
