Norbert Cartagena wrote:
>
> Yeah, but let's nor forget to give credit where credit is due. Linux
> needed GNU to come to be and GNU needed Linux to come to promenence
> (lest we all be stuck in the slower development cycle of the *BSDs).
> Now, I understand calling the system "Linux" or (as I sometimes do, by
> accident) "GNU" in spoken language as a matter of convenience, however,
> whether or not you wish to call it the such, the propper way to reffer
> to the system is GNU/Linux (afterall, most of the software in a
> GNU/Linux system IS GNU software, not the Kernel - thankfully, if you
> get my drift).
So you agree that we should then instead call it
"GNU/X11/BSD/Netscape/KDE/GNOME/Apache/Perl/Linux" so that appropriate
credit is given to those who have assisted in the success of Linux,
yes?
Afterall, thanks to the BSD project(s) we have been able to get a lot of
useful utilities and clues into how to build a high-performance kernel.
And if it weren't for the X11 project who would even be using Linux?
Nobody wants a purely command-line OS anymore - we've gotta have at
least xterms. And without Netscape releasing their browser on the Linux
platform and enabling access to the Web, would anyone have stuck with
Linux with the explosion of the web? Without the KDE and GNOME projects
would Linux anywhere near the desktop market share it has now, even as
miniscule as it is? And if Apache and Perl didn't run on Linux, would
it have nearly the same overall marketshare or would it have been
relegated into some vaguely interesting experimental backwater OS?
AFAIC, the argument about "GNU" being necessary for Linux to exist and
therefore credit must be given where credit is due is baloney - the
existence of the Linux kernel itself is credit to the GNU project and
trying to insist that "GNU" be tacked onto the name is just coattail
riding. "GNU/Hurd" I can believe in more, simply because GNU/Hurd is
_supposed_ to be the system that the whole GNU project has been working
towards. Of course, Linux got there first and gathered up most of the
mindshare and now RMS has to come up with some way to get some of the
spotlight back, hence this whole "GNU/Linux" fiasco.
But that's merely my opinion. I believe in the ideals set by the FSF
and the GNU project, so I also feel that I have the right to _not_ call
it "GNU/Linux" if I don't want to, and others can feel free to call it
"GNU/Linux" if they so desire and more power to 'em - just don't insist
that I follow along.
So, normally I try to avoid these silly "GNU/Linux vs Linux" religious
wars, but I feel compelled to disagree with people who _insist_ that the
_only_ "correct" way to refer to a Linux system is "GNU/Linux" since I
don't believe myself that it must be the case.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map
{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;
$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)
[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join
"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=
unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d
>>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*
8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}
print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
usage: qrpff 153 2 8 105 225 < /mnt/dvd/VOB_FILENAME \
| extract_mpeg2 | mpeg2dec -
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.opendvd.org/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:47:05 EDT