On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:15:17AM +0200, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> my 2 euro cents :
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds
> > in 1991. He basically only built a kernel and used parts of the GNU
> > project to pad it out to a complete OS. People started calling the
> > whole OS Linux. At this the founder of GNU, Richard Stallman, balked,
> > because he feels that the OS is as much his as Linus' and that he
> > deserves credit for it. He would like to see that credit in the shape
> > of the OS being called GNU/Linux rather than just Linux.
> well, i don't agree at 100%: rms arguments've drawbacks.
> gnu softwares're NOT the majority of free softwares in a distro.
> eg, in mandrake, only looking at sources rpms, they're:
> so should we speak of gnu-bsd-mpl-qpl-artistic/linux ?
> or, as gpl softwares number is greater than gnu/fsf ones, should we
> speak of gpl/linux ?
A distribution is much more than an operation system. If you just look
at the core components that make up the OS (I'm sure that there will be
plenty of contention regarding what these are ;-) then you have a Linux
kernel, and GNU tools. Most of the other programs are not essential--a
bare bones system will be mostly GNU stuff.
When talking about the kernel, `Linux' is appropriate, but when talking
about the /operating system/ as a whole `GNU/Linux' is more accurate,
especially since you could replace the kernel with Hurd or BSD and from
the POV of the user (or programmer) there would be little noticeable
change but the GNU part would still be there. The GNU tools are the
actual part the user (and programmer) will interact with, be it bash,
grep, gcc or glibc.
Just my tuppence,
** Registration Number: 151826, http://counter.li.org **
Need Epson Stylus Utilities? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 available on public keyservers
Gimp-developer mailing list