Re: The return of RMS and GNU/Linux
>>>>> "David" == David Engel <david@elo.ods.com> writes:
David> Does emacs have more code in it than X? Does gcc have more
David> code in it than all of the network utilities?
X11 (or TeX) are not relevant to asserting a `Linux' naming authority for
systems that use the Linux kernel. X11 would be relevant if it
1) wasn't in the public domain, and 2) then attempted to make that
assertion. GNU is not in the public domain, and further, is more
relevant than the kernel for reasons of size and coherence.
David> And it's not mean spirited to unilaterally change configuration
David> names just because nobody else would adopt his preferred name
David> for our system?
He changed it in the program he developed and maintains, he may
or may not also change it in the programs the FSF maintains. In any
case, Emacs still accepts the traditional syntax.
David> Contrary to what RMS thinks, just because we chose to use may
David> of the same packages for Linux that RMS chose for his GNU
David> system, does not make Linux a GNU system.
As long as you choose to use Emacs, GDB, GCC, binutils, bash,
ghostscript diffutils, textutils, fileutils, shellutils, it is
reasonable for friends of the FSF to call it Lignux. Anyone one of
the first four would justify our doing this. I will do this
because I think many Linux users have never even learned what the Goal is.
David> So, I guess everyone knows what 'linux' means then? If so,
David> then there wasn't any reason to change it, right?
No, not everyone knows what `linux' means. That's the point. Some
think that the primary contribution to a useful Unix system is the
kernel.
Reply to: