Re: alternative motd and logo?
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 01:02:04PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 12:32, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > Mandatory schmandatory. "Credit where credit is due" is enough of a
> > reason to insist that it be called by it's true name: "Debian
> > GNU/Linux". Debian is far more than just Linux. My hat's off to the GNU
> > project, and if you think you owe them nothing (or that avoiding giving
> > them credit is something desirable/admirable) you are deluding yourself
> > (and probably only yourself).
>
> <Sigh> How much do we of XFree? Mozilla.org and AOL? OpenOffice.org
> and Sun? AbiWord? Ximian? TrollTech? KDE.org?
As much as I hate to get into this perennial war, all of those are
optional components: I only use software by two of them at all, and on
one of my systems I use none of them. If you take away either GNU or
Linux, it becomes a radically different system, so it's much more
reasonable to consider both as core.
(Of course, BSD has a fair claim to a good chunk of the core too.)
> It goes without saying that we all use tons of GNU s/w and s/w developed
> on GNU tools. However, if most Windows based tools and applications
> were written in Borland C, instead of VC, should "the other OS" be
> called Borland/Windows? No...
If Borland wrote the standard development tools, the standard C library,
the dynamic loader, and a large percentage of the standard core
userspace tools, then I'd say yes.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: