In the documentary "Revolution OS" we see Richard Stallman insisting that the Linux distributions be called GNU/Linux distributions, and that the term "free" software is the proper term instead for "open source" software.
He, in fact, "enforces" this nomenclature like a dictator when you use the GNU tools like "configure" and "gcc". For example, when I do a configure, I always include the options "--host=i386-admu-linux" and "--build=i386-admu-linux" but the configure script always converts these to "--host=i386-admu-linux-gnu" (see the appended "-gnu"?) and "--build=i386-admu-linux-gnu". Talk about "freedom". The truth of the matter is, most distributions, not just AdmuLinux, use not only the Linux kernel and GNU utilities, but a lot of other non-GNU packages like Apache, Sendmail, Xfree86, pine, perl, etc. In fact, the most important applications are NON-gnu! So to require that Linux distributions be called GNU/Linux is dictatorial on the part of RMS. Of course, gcc is GNU, and without gcc, there would not have been Linux. I think distro makers should be free to call their distros linux-distros, not gnu/linux-distros. PMana P.S. If you liked the song of the open-source movement at the end of the movie, you must be either c---y or a hacker! He he :) _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
