Linux

Am 26. Sep, 2001 schwätzte Brian Cluff so:

> There is no doubt that the GNU project has done huge amounts for linux. I

Actually it's the other way around as GNU was around and functioning before
Linux hit the streets :).

> just have a problem calling it GNU/Linux when there is so much more in there
> that's not in the GNU project, like XFree86 and apache that calling it
> GNU/Linux completely ignores, or even worse, implies that GNU somehow
> deserves credit for it. Also GNU/FSF doesn't write all the GNU software,
> for the most part its just a distro type of thing. I would be like people
> insisting on calling mandrake Redhat/Mandrake because it was origionally
> based off of Redhat's distro.

We need another name for the OS, then. Linux is a kernel, not an OS. That's
like saying the engine is the car. Granted the car isn't as useful without
an engine, but it can be towed or used for stationary activities :).

An engine without a car however, is a trike project waiting to happen. Hmm,
guess that blew my analogy ;-).

My main interest in naming the OS is that soon we will have the unnamed OS
running on different kernels. Hurd might actually be released at some point.
Looks like debian GNU/Solaris died and debian GNU/bsd never got off the
ground, though.

ciao,

der.hans
--
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com
# Practice socially consious hedonism. Do whatever you want,
# as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. - der.hans