On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 20:14:59 you wrote:
On 06/02/2010 07:57 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:that
the link has relevance and interest to the list - it has been posted by
many people on most of the LUG lists in the country. What I took
exception to is the idea that by constantly renaming things, one can
change their nature. Let us face facts - the GNU project did not write
the linux kernel, and no amount of name changing is going to change
fact.
I am not a fan of the name but that's a weak argument IMO
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
basically RMS was miffed that he could not write a kernel and linus did -
so he
wanted a share of the credit. So he demanded that the word 'GNU' be added.
But
for those who do not know the history, the word 'GNU/Linux' implies
ownership
of linux by GNU. This also could be fair enough (although rather childish)
as
long as Linus agreed to it - he did not.
anyway, for any usable distro one needs not only GNU, but also BSD - like
fedora would be junk without python - apache (httpd, subversion, etc etc) ,
MIT licensed stuff and about 30-40 other licenses. So would it make sense
to
call it GNU/BSD/APACHE/MIT/Linux? Everyone wants credit no?
oops, python, git et all are all written in GCC - so let us give them the
credit - GNU/Python, GNU/Git ...
--
regards
kg
http://livejournal.com/lawgon
