Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:37:29 +0100, Frank Heckenbach said:
"Almost everything" is not really true. Even today, the GNU system uses a substantial number of components from BSD, X, TeX, etc. You
And that was the plan nearly from the start of the GNU project. The GNU project never said that all software has to be written from scratch for it; it just turned out that a lot of stuff needed to be written due to a lack of existing free implementations.
Note that I don't deny it. I was just refusing Jeroen' claim that "Almost everything was already there *written* by GNU." [emphasis by me] which is clearly not true. "Collected" or "compiled" would have been alright ...
developers really called it "GNU/Linux", someone like Alessandro Rubini would have to speak of "GNU/Linux", even though his system uses only the kernel Linux and no GNU parts. So please, get
I don't understand this. If you are using just the bare bone Linux kernel, the name Linux is what should be used.
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 the kernel (and perhaps some some utilities close to the kernel, written by Linus etc.), so it's no misnaming to call this "Linux".
I hope the next one will be better researched.
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.
Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de http://fjf.gnu.de/
So much GNU, so less GNU/Linux ;-)
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 Linux (the kernel) for not being called GNU/Linux, like Jeroen did, does not help, but hurt the reputation of GNU.
Frank