@t3g: Here's some reading homework to you (since it appears you haven't
received a good education in this area):
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
Linus himself says that it should not be called "GNU/Linux" unless the distro
itself is totally GNU or is done by them.
So, it should be called "Linux" because the distro itself is totally Linux or
is done by Linux developers... thanks for letting me know!
GNU/Linux distributions are not only Linux distributions, but also GNU
distributions and many-other-packages distributions. Or do they ship only
Linux and not GNU? How many packages distributed by these distributions are
from the GNU project, and how many are the Linux kernel, and how many are
from smaller projects? See
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#allsmall and 7º § from
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
"GNU" and "Linux" come together to say the distribution is mainly of GNU and
Linux, specifying the kernel isn't from GNU Project (which appeared before in
history), but Linux. If you don't like the credits to both, go there and make
a whole Linux-only distro without GNU and packages from other projects, and
use it. Or make it only GNU -- at least this one is possible, I think.
It would be nice if Trisquel was the official distro of the FSF, but that
would take convincing of Stallman.
What are you trying to do, put Trisquel users/developers against FSF? Against
Stallman, the man without whom we would be forced to use the system those
people who put their power (money implied) above ethics, like you, want we to
use? Shame on you!
Stallman means well, but he is kinda on an island here in followers of his
complete vision.
There is fewer people concerned with user's computing sovereignty and freedom
than those concerned, above all, with their power over the user, but the
number of people who uphold something is not the expression of the reality of
it. Indeed, this huge "only-Linux-not-GNU" lie is very real. And this
"Linux-only" island is huge, isn't it?
Libre Software implies user's consciousness of the relation between him and
the distributor/developers. This consciousness implies the consciousness of
who is each of them (given the huge number of developers, we say GNU and
Linux to address most of it).
I personally think its a great vision (even if its unrealistic) [...]
Stallman himself uses that clarification to give credits to Linux developers.
He doesn't call GNU/Linux distributions "GNU", calls it "GNU/Linux". Linus
uses a lot of GNU and says the piece of software he created deserves the
credit for it; he says GNU should not be speaked, only Linux. So, who's
padding his ego -- or it's his money? Who's trying to hide the other's work
to become the primadonna of his own wet, unrealistic dreams? Linus is
important, but not the much he thinks.
Stop pretending Libre Software is unrealistic. It's real. It's a human being
licensing the result of his efforts to another human being in a lovely,
ethical way. Stop pretending power is above that. Stop pretending we should
"drop the guns" only because we are not reaching your goal.
This "powerism" ("moneyism" implied) necessarily leads to exploration. That's
what happens to capitalism if there is no ethics; Bill Gates et al. easily
appear. Gates, Jobs and all this control-obsessed people wouldn't be nothing
without a huge mass of people with this "powerist" ("moneyist" implied)
mentality, which you have too.
I don't know where's Hurd, but where would be Linux without GNU GPL, without
GNU packages... without GNU Project? GNU received many good things because of
Linux, and so did Linux. Stallman gives credit to Linus for what he did, but
Linus prefers to be a movie star.
