>> Here's how rms explains it in his article "Linux and the GNU System"
(https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html):
'...the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called
“Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU
system, developed by the GNU Project.
'There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel...'
The phrase "GNU system", from the first quoted paragraph, is linked to a page
on the gnu.org web site that explains what the GNU operating system is:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TheGNUsystem
So the word "system" in the second paragrah refers to the GNU operating
system.
On the gnu.org page, in reference to Linux being used as the kernel instead
of Hurd, it says, "The result is still a variant of the GNU system."
You try to prove that stallman himself calls a gnu+linux system simply "GNU
system" by picking quotes and phrases from the gnu site; I think your effort
is in vain, since stallman calls the system in almost every speech he gives
"the gnu+linux operating system"; there are certainly over 30 such speeches
available; you can watch the stallman episode of the "linux action show" if
you like to, as one example.
So glueing together some pieces of the gnu website in order to deny what
stallman states almost everyday in his speeches doesn't make much sense to
me.
> I won't claim that my analogy was great, but it did help me communicate the
idea.
No, a false analogy doesn't help anyone communicating any idea. It simply
obfuscates the situation.
> Panasonic makes the batteries for Tesla. It would be strange to refer to
the car as a Panasonic.
As you can see, even my car analogy has holes, since a car is commonly named
after the company who puts together all kind of pieces of the car and you're
right, it's not very important how many pieces come from ferrari.
By the way, I never claimed the system should be called "linux", like you try
to imply with this analogy.
> From the article you quote:
I read a different article on nature and just saw the headline, which I
liked.
So I didn't read this article and I won't read it just for this discussion.
But I don't really like the text you quoted.
We shouldn't mix up what we call a "model concept" with what we call a
"metaphor".
A metaphor is used to illustrate a situation refering to a completely
different thing.
A model concept is an image of a situation we don't know matching with
everything we can observe and allowing us to make right predictions.
Electrons are a model concept; Something like "electrons are like the glue,
keeping matter together" is a metaphor;
Of course we need model concepts in order to make good sience, but we should
be very critical concerning metaphors.
