Nope. Because "Linux" is not an exactly defined technical term, it is,
as most words are, defined by it's typical use.
Linux is an OS. Have you ever said "Today I have recompiled Linux" ?
Probably not, you would say "I compile a new kernel". In fact, noone
uses the plain word "Linux" to refer to the kernel.
> There are quite a few operating systems out there using Linux as their kernel.
> Debian, Redhat, and Suse to name a few. These OS's all have their differences.
That is beyond the typical use of the phrase "different OS's". You won't
be understood if you say "I have three different OS's in my Office". You
would say something like "I have three different flavours of Linux". But
in most cases the difference doesn't matter and you just say "All my
computers have Linux", and people understand you very well. They
understand that even better than "GNU Linux". And being understood is
the most important thing.
Even if you insist on those things beeing different OS's, the term "GNU
Linux" is not suitable for distinguishing them.
> But one thing that is common among the majority (AFAIK all) of them is the core
> of the system is based on FSF tools, aka the base GNU utilities. It is this
> base that gives these operating systems a common feel, and direct compatibility
> among scripts, et al, not to mention the usage license.
Because it _is_ common you don't need to name it. Understanding "GNU
Linux" in that sense is almost the same as saying "A man with two eyes
and a nose". No. One says "A man with red hair" and analogical "Redhat
Linux" or "SUSE Linux".
> If an operating system was based purely on BSD tools (and I'm sure one is
> around or in the works), or proprietary tools, it would have a distinctly
> different feel, differences in operation, and command incompatibilities.
>
> Thus, referring to the spectrum of FSF tools and Linux kernel based operating
> systems as GNU/Linux is not a matter of respect, but a matter of accuracy!
>
> Put Linux in a ROM that addresses a single program. You're using Linux, but is
> that something comparable to Redhat??? Say IBM transplants the Linux kernel
> into AIX. You're using Linux but is it ANYTHING like what you REALLY mean by
> the term?
If those things become common some day, "GNU Linux" might become useful
to distinguish them. if one-eyed people become common some day, the term
"man with two eyes" becomes useful too.
> Finally, and of course, without the FSF, the GPL, and gcc, GNU/Linux operating
> systems would in no way exist in the way they do today, if at all. It is
> therefor nice to give the PEOPLE of the FSF their do. I see a lot of names on
> these core GNU programs. 'GNU' means a lot more then just the hard work of
> one man named Rich Stallman.
That makes some sense, but it is still ridiculous. Not even MS insists
on "Microsoft Windows", you are allowed to say "Windows".
Names are just for expressing your thoughts. They are different from
desriptions, and they are different from credits. And that purpose
serves plain "Linux" best.
Thomas Kunert
-
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/