On Jan 14, 6:32 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nicolas vigier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 2008-01-03, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> What he asks is for people to not call the whole operating system as > >> Linux, which is a common mistake as 99.999% of the time people are > >> talking about a GNU variant to which was added the Linux kernel. > > > This not a mistake, this is just a name. And a name doesn't have to > > reflect all the things which are included inside it. Most people seems > > to like the "Linux distribution" name, everybody understands that it > > means the Linux kernel and many other things, > > But those many other things are not arbitrary. You dont' let yourself > be rechristened by your tailor, even though you are not fit for running > around naked, do you? > > > and I see no reason to change that name to something else that is not > > as easy to say just because RPMS decides so. > > Uh, GNU was there first. So why should people decide to rename it when > it was done in the compass of a different project?
That's right, the majority component of the system is GNU. So then it seems only to make sense that GNU should be in the name. > Why is it ok to > bereave the GNU project of the credit for its work? Credit can be given in other places beside _names_. The idea it must be given in the name and in no other place doesn't really make much sense. > And why is it > uncool if the project leaders decide that they want to have their work > known as their work? > And by their name, of course. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
