Re: [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux
Sean Hunter (chorgain@escape.com)
Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:47:34 -0500 (EST)
> well, apart from glibc and gcc, gasm, cpp, ld and other compilation
> tools there are also bash, shellutils, fileutils, findutils, textutils,
> gnu m4, gnu make, gnu awk, and gnu sed that i can think of off the top
> of my head.
>
> these tools constitute the bulk of a basic unix system (a unix system
> may have more tools than these, but they won't/shouldn't have any less),
> and they're all FSF/GNU programs developed as part of the GNU system...
>
> ....and that's exactly stallman's point - the GNU system existed long
> before the linux kernel did. When Linux came along, the only thing
> missing from GNU was a free kernel. Linux filled that gap, resulting
> instantly in a complete, free operating system.
>
> GNU is the system, Linux is the kernel. GNU/Linux is the GNU system
> running on a Linux kernel.
>
> (similarly, GNU/Hurd will mean the GNU system running an a HURD kernel)
>
>
> as for your comments about rms acting like a 'twit' or a 'two year old
> child', i think you should look at your own behaviour and blinkered
> comments on this issue before pointing the finger at anyone else.
>
I'm wondering is how is that GNU "owns" those utils... from recent grep on
gcc Changelog I didn't see much contributed by GNU(mainly rms)besides
bunch of configuration changes to change unknown to pc and linux to
linux-guess in config.guess and few changes in getloadavg.c. So how does
GNU owns those utils, I thought the point of GNU was that nobody owned
something exculsively.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/