On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:51:15 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
Note that I don't deny it. I was just refusing Jeroen' claim that "Almost everything was already there *written* by GNU." [emphasis by
Okay.
me] which is clearly not true. "Collected" or "compiled" would have been alright ...
or "used by"
Exactly. That's why Jeroen's statement '[Linus] only had to write a kernel and a few other things. He misnamed this to "Linux" and didn't credit GNU.' is also unreasonable. He is talking only about
I heard him speak about the *Linux OS* several times on conferences.
BTW, I also recall that once he proudly presented Linux running MS-Powerpoint using an early WINE version.
The Hurd is based on a lot of research.
Please don't quote me out of context. My statement clearly referred to Jeroen's "history lesson", not to GNU, Linux or the Hurd.
Right, however I can't see what's wrong with Jeroen's history of GNU and OS kernels except for leaving out that a lot of other kernels used to be in the works around 1990.
Yes. I support GNU, I use GNU/Linux on my machines (and sometimes work on GNU/Solaris and GNU/IRIX machines ;-). But I think attacking
You will never see a GNU/proprietaryKernel - this is a contradiction to the goals of the GNU project. Using GNU/Linux is explicitly giving Linux credit for helping out with a very usable free kernel and getting around the bootstrapping problem on how to develop a free OS using only Free Software.
Linux (the kernel) for not being called GNU/Linux, like Jeroen did, does not help, but hurt the reputation of GNU.
Well, attacking is certainly not a good behaviour in the community. We recently made a lot of experience with this ;-). Suggesting to use the proper term is what I do.
Werner