[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux Kernel
    Craig Sanders <>:
    : > : GNU own a very small proportion of the code we run, on the whole,
    : > : but what they do own comprises a great many of the most fundamental
    : > : and universal components of a system.
    : >
    : > Such as? The only substantial chunk is gcc and that isn't part of the
    : > operating system.
    : well, apart from glibc and gcc, gasm, cpp, ld and other compilation
    : tools there are also bash, shellutils, fileutils, findutils, textutils,
    : gnu m4, gnu make, gnu awk, and gnu sed that i can think of off the top
    : of my head.
    : ....and that's exactly stallman's point - the GNU system existed long
    : before the linux kernel did. When Linux came along, the only thing
    : missing from GNU was a free kernel. Linux filled that gap, resulting
    : instantly in a complete, free operating system.

    As I have pointed out to Craig in private mail, Linux is an operating
    system, by all of the commonly held definitions (without exception)
    in the popular OS texts, such as Operating Systems Concepts and Modern
    Operating Systems, etc.

    The GNU tools are _applications_, again, by all of the commonly
    held definitions of an application. To describe the list above as
    an "operating system" is to simply show one's ignorance - those are
    applications, they aren't an operating system. To try and say otherwise
    is as silly as Microsoft trying to suggest that a web browser is part of
    the operating system. People who believe that haven't completed their
    OS 101 class, and have no business telling other people what's what.

    Furthermore, Stallman - being the person who caused all of this fuss -
    really has little ground to stand on. The so called GNU tools aren't
    really FSF tools - they are mostly versions of software packages which
    the authors have agreed to donate to the FSF - the FSF actually wrote
    very little of the tools which make up what we call the GNU tools.
    Even GCC has had a tremendous amount of work done by Cygnus Solutions.
    While Stallman has done much to advance the cause of free software,
    he is not the end all authority on the topic - he hasn't done enough
    work to justify that authority. He's simply trying to piggy back on
    the success of Linux, which is fine - as long as he doesn't claim credit
    where no credit is due.

    Consider where the GNU effort was before Linux came around. Stallman had
    15 years to become a big deal and he failed. Linux has succeeded and
    Stallman can't deal with it. Bummer for him, but he shouldn't drag the
    rest of us into it.

    It's very interesting to contrast Stallman's behaviour with Gettys'
    behaviour - I would say that Gettys contribution to free software is
    quite a bit greater than Stallmans (just my opinion) - you are free
    to argue that. Regardless, they both made substantial contributions.
    Contrast Gettys comments made on this topic with Stallmans comments and
    I think you will see the difference between maturity and immaturity.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.028 / U:7.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site