[Nottingham] NLUG: What's in a name?

[Martin]

On 10 June 2011 00:43, Sergiusz Pawlowicz <sergiusz at pawlowicz.name> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 00:27, Martin <martin at ml1.co.uk> wrote:
>> One interesting aspect...
>>
>> GNU (the OS) can run on other kernels other than the Linux kernel.
>>
>> Conversely, is there any other OS (other than GNU) running on the Linux kernel?

I think that the example of Android/Linux where the overall system is
Marketed as "Android" (with no mention at all of Linux) is an
important example there... Also, there is no GNU "glibc" in that
combination. So that also kills my premise that the description
"Linux" automatically assumes there must be GNU OS components on top.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

That is an excellent summary of many years of debate and of the
philosophical ambiguities. There is "geekie accuracy". Then also there
is common parlance that blurs the descriptive boundaries where
GNU/Linux or Busybox/Linux or Android/Linux are all just simply called
"Linux" (and Marketing might name any fiction for marketing purposes).

The closing line says a lot: "Although "GNU/Linux" (pronounced /ɡəˈnuː
slæʃ ˈlɪnəks/) is often pronounced without the slash, Stallman
recommends explicitly saying the word "slash" in order to avoid the
mistaken suggestion that the Linux kernel itself is a GNU package."


Further thoughts?

Cheers,
Martin