Re: The return of RMS and GNU/Linux
> Bruce> Please feel free to edit all mentions of "lignuix" or whatever
> Bruce> he calls it to "linux" and have these changes appear in the
> Bruce> .diff file for your package. We will continue to feed bug fixes
> Bruce> back to the upstream maintainers. This has always been our
> Bruce> policy.
>
> Bruce> The best way to deal with something
> Bruce> this crazy is to _ignore_ it, not fight about it.
>
> I'm writing this message with Emacs 19.31. Emacs has more code in it
> than the Linux kernel. I compiled Emacs with gcc, which also has more
> code in it than the Linux kernel. Even if this issue was about RMS's
Does emacs have more code in it than X? Does gcc have more code in it
than all of the network utilities?
> accomplishments, which it isn't, I wouldn't do something so mean-spirited
> as to edit out `lignux' of an official distribution -- anymore than
> I would to add `lignux' to Linux patches.
And it's not mean spirited to unilaterally change configuration names
just because nobody else would adopt his preferred name for our
system?
Contrary to what RMS thinks, just because we chose to use may of the
same packages for Linux that RMS chose for his GNU system, does not
make Linux a GNU system.
> `lignux' as a configuration alias communicates information. Supposing
> there were a Linux based system that did not use GNU code, then
> `linux' would differentiate. But, see, there isn't.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, I guess everyone knows what 'linux' means then? If so, then there
wasn't any reason to change it, right?
David
--
David Engel Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com 1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
Reply to: