On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:27:49PM -0800, mike3 wrote: > On Dec 5, 8:01 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:46:00AM -0800, mike3 wrote: > > > I do not see the reason why "GNU/Linux" should be preferred over just > > > "Linux" to refer to the system. > > > > Hi, you can get *all* of Linux athttp://www.kernel.org/ > > > > For a few examples of GNU/Linux, check Debian GNU/Linux, Red Hat Enterprise > > [GNU/]Linux, Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux, etc... > > > > > The arugment seems to be that the GNU > > > project, which contributed a great deal to the Free operating system > > > called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", should get credited for these > > > contributions in the name. There is nothing wrong with giving credit > > > -- in fact, it should be done. But in a NAME? Does this mean we have > > > to name movies, books, etc. even all computer software out there, in > > > such a way as to credit the creators and contributors? There are other > > > ways to do that, you know. I do not understand why *names* are the > > > appropriate place to give credit. What's the reason, anyway? > > > > Hi Toad, I guess I can call you Toad instead of Mike, after all, what is > > it about names that matters? > > > > Well, I wouldn't like it, although it's funny, just because that is > not > the name that I have or use.
"Linux" though, or "GNU/Linux", or > whatever, is just a collection of computer programs, No, Linux is a kernel, you can get all of it in a single tar ball at http://www.kernel.org/ ... you know, neat packages called linux-VERSION.tar.bz2 (for instance). > The thing I was referring to was specifically the idea of *names > giving credit*. The logic seems to be that the proper place for the > *credit* is in the *name*. That's what I do not get. Why can't one > just call it "Linux", and yet have the credit given for GNU somewhere > else? Hi Toad :) > Is it because it emphasizes the "Linux" component, and > therefore could be thought of in some sense as explicitly > _denying_ the GNU contribution, while "GNU/Linux" emphasizes > both components? Why not some new name with no emphasis > on either? Because there no need for that? Linux : a kernel GNU : an operating system, with HURD as its kernel. GNU/Linux (or as some also use GNU+Linux) : GNU using the kernel Linux Red Hat : a commercial GNU/Linux variant Debian : a GNU/Linux variant ... Do you think yet another name helps or changes anything positively? Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Setting Orange, the 48th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
