Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > 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.

looking at what the mandrake basesystem package requires as minimal
system :

util-linux (swapon, mount, ...), e2fsprogs, lilo, initscripts,
console-tools, chkconfig, SysVinit, bdflush, kernel, losetup,
net-tools, modutils, procps, psmisc, rpm, sysklogd, .... are all linux
specific tools.

only fileutils, grep, findutils, glibc're a gnu project part.
there's other small gnu packages requires (time, textutils,
sh-utils...) but they're less important than previous ones.

> Most of the other programs are not essential--a bare bones system
> will be mostly GNU stuff.

looking at the above, this is *very*, *very* mitigated

> When talking about the kernel, `Linux' is appropriate, but when
> talking about the /operating system/ as a whole `GNU/Linux' is more
> accurate,

nope since gnu tools (yet an important part of the os) are'nt the
essential part.
neither is the bsd tools part. neither're gpl linux specific tools,

this is why i think linux and gnu/linux are equivalent (that is
they're equally mis-naming conventions) on a technical point.

on an ethic point, gnu/linux win since it hold a reference to the gnu
project and the fsf work.

on an historic point, linux win since everybody knows or had heard
about linux. but gnu/linux is rarer, despite rms advertising campaing.

don't misunderstand me: i respect a lot stallman's work; contrary to
many (mis-educated?) people, i don't see him as a fanatic; i see him
as the man who pushes the communauty in the right direction.
but on the gnu/linux point, the situation isn't as clear as he claims
it is.

why not forcing gnu/atheos, gnu/freebsd (for the ports part), ...
this is NOT coherent with forcing gnu/linux.

> 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. 

nope, you would get a lot of bsd stuff in the os core ...

> The GNU tools are the actual part the user (and programmer) will
> interact with, be it bash, grep, gcc or glibc.

depending of the view point.

as a packager[1] and a developper, i massively use gnu tools :
compilation chain (binutils, glibc, gcc), emacs (development, mail,
newsgroups, diary, ...) but not only them : i also uses gnus and
various others packages for emacs, rpm, the kernel, windowmaker,
screen, ....

but for an end user, kde or gnome're far important blocks of the os...
and're not part of the gnu project _despite_ they're gpl.

one cannot account {g,}ui as basic os componant.

then, yes glibc is a big part, but as important to bootstrap the
systems as the sysv infrastructure (init, boot scripts, ...),
packaging infrastructure (rpm/urpmi or dpkg/apt), system maintenance
tools (reiserfsprogs, e2fsprogs, jfs-utils, util-linux, ...).

there'sn't just a majority: the gnu part is as important as other
componants of the os :-)

[1] as gimp packager for mandrake, i'll have to package gimp-1.3.x for
    contribs in not so many time ... :-)
Still untested beyond 'it compiles' (davej)

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to