I agree on the points that Linux is more than just GNU, I also second that GNU/Linux sounds silly (and imho, not really all that accurate)<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 22/04/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">James Le Cuirot
</b> <<a href="mailto:chewi@aura-online.co.uk">chewi@aura-online.co.uk</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:52:43 +0100<br>"Arron Finnon" <<a href="mailto:arron.finnon@hotmail.co.uk">arron.finnon@hotmail.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Hi Guys,<br>><br>> //begin quote<br>><br>> I appreciate the intentions of your organization, but the name you
<br>> have chosen for it has the unfortunate effect of denying the GNU<br>> Project the credit for our system. (See<br>> <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.">http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
</a>)<br>><br>> Could you possibly call it the GNU/Linux Society, and give us equal<br>> mention?<br>><br>> //end quote<br>><br>> Arron<br><br>Hahaha you should have known better! He is practically famous for doing
<br>that. Anyone who speaks to him needs to do an s/Linux/GNU\/Linux/g on<br>their brain beforehand.<br><br>I do understand his reasoning. It's like when people refer to Cygwin as<br>a Linux emulator. It has nothing to do with Linux. It's not even an
<br>emulator. You could probably call it GNU/Windows. Although Linus<br>Torvalds disagrees with him on the point, he does state that Linux is<br>the part of the system you don't see. When you sit down in front of an<br>
arbitrary terminal and you type your familiar commands like ls, cd,<br>less or whatever, is that Linux? It might be. Most would say that it<br>is. But it might not be. It could equally be Windows or some GNU-based<br>BSD or even AmigaOS. Yes, I have used bash, ssh, gcc and the like under
<br>AmigaOS! This is the part of the system we see and recognise.<br><br>It is often stated that a Linux distribution comprises of a lot of<br>other software too. This is true though almost all of it will require<br>GNU libc in order to run. uclibc is a glibc-compatible alternative but
<br>practically no distributions actually use it.<br><br>Despite everything I've said above, I still don't call it GNU/Linux.<br>Why not? Because it's such a stupid name! RMS really shot himself in<br>the foot there. If he hadn't chosen such a stupid name, more people
<br>would probably use it. It's not at all catchy and if you even begin to<br>explain to someone what a recursive acronym is, they'll generally run<br>away screaming.<br><br>I've got a funny story about RMS but I'll tell you later. (-;
<br><br>Chewi<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list<br><a href="mailto:dundee@lists.lug.org.uk">dundee@lists.lug.org.uk</a> <a href="http://dundee.lug.org.uk">
http://dundee.lug.org.uk</a><br><a href="https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee">https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee</a><br>Chat on IRC, #tlug on <a href="http://dundee.lug.org.uk">dundee.lug.org.uk
</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><generic witty comment>