Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux isn't an operating system | Date | Fri, 08 Mar 1996 13:50:11 +0200 | From | Mike Kilburn <> |
| |
> > Anyway, I still think the "Linux" part in a typical Linux > distribution, say RedHat or Slackware, is a bit overadvertised when > compared to the GNU part. This may not be too disturbing to the
What about bind, sendmail, inn, apatche, wu-ftpd, and everthing else. When I look at the packages on the GNU ftp site they dont make up the majority of RedHat. We dont use GNU libc do we? I dont use emacs. I do use GCC and bash and I like them but Its not the bulk of the RedHat distribution.
> Quite many end users feel they are just using Linux. And it is not > uncommon for people who see a Linux system for the first time to > comment something like "Cool! Think, Torvalds has made all this. He > must be a genius."
I guess some people think Bill Gates wrote Win95.
> > "GNU" in the name of the system would perhaps correct the both errors > inherent in this kind of view. At least it would raise the question > "What GNU?".
Why should we care about GNU so much. Is not sendmail just as important to some Linux users. Of course GNU should get credit, just like every one else that make Linux possible. What about Minix? Would Linux be around if there was no Minix? Does RMS want every system that gains from his work to give him credit? If so, why is that not part of his GPL?
| |