>
> 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?
>
Beautiful reply, and infact excellent argument. However, you seem to
miss one point: It is not the tools that have brought it to full success
that are are giving credit to, it is the tools which gave birth to a
platform which those tools are built for that are recognized with the
name. Note that X11 is not NEEDED to run the system - it is an add-on,
as is the baggage that comes with it: Gnome, KDE and Netscape. That,
then leaves us with BSD/GNU/Perl. Perl is a programming language, much
like C. WHy do we not call it the C/Perl/BSD/GNU/Linux system, then?
Simple: that's like naming every Lego in your box - the mere presence
and recognized presence thereof of a distinguishible component is
recognition whithin itself. So then that leaves us with BSD/GNU/Linux.
Or rather GNU/Linux/BSD, if we are to take the biggest to smallest in
the contribution scale. Now, we begin to question, do we need the GNU
part of it? as it currently stands, yes. I've only heard of one project
that claims to create a non-Unix like environment arround the Linux
kernel (the website escapes me), and we know that without the GNU tools,
Linux would simple be "somwthing that runs a computer." Tools would have
to be developed, such as in the embeded world where, yes, it IS more
acurate to call it Linux - whether the developer or not chooses to do so
is another matter (he could, concievably, call it anything else and just
claim that "yeah, it uses the Linux kernel, but it's called _______",
something which I'll take up later). So then, it is established that,
for the moment, the GNU portion of the name is justified for its shier
promenence within the functionality of the system. The BSD portion,
however, is another matter. BSD improvements to the kernel have been
assimilated ("resistance is futile") into the Linux kernel and are
therefore now Linux. So, then that leaves us with 2 portions: GNU and
Linux - one of which would be nowhere without the other, at least at
this time.
Now, of course, we could take this argument in another light entirely -
the word "Linux" just sounds so much cooler to market than GNU/Linux
(reminiscent of OS/2 warp #, which sounds too much like a component
model). Therefore the name for the collection of the software is made
Linux, which just also happens to be the name of one of the components
of the system - completely a marketting decision, much like the beloved
Penguin. Come to think of it, we could puch to rename the thing
"PenguinOS" or even "Animal OS" seeing as there seems to be such a
passion for animals in this doman:
Penguin -> Linux
Yak -> GNU (or is there an animal called Gnu?)
Lizard -> SuSE, but that's distro specific
Swan -> FreeS/WAN
Dinosaur-> Mozilla
Fox (?) -> Gimp
Tomcat -> Tomcat/Jakarta (I think)
Et Cetera.....
But that's not the case, is it?
By the way, you're right, this is a messy argument, so to do the
honorable thing.....
Hitler, Nazi, this thread is dead. ;)
Norb
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:02:25 EDT