Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:42:57 +0300 (MSK) | Subject | Re: [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux Kernel |
| |
In <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901040006120.27272-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net> Todd Graham Lewis (tlewis@mindspring.net) wrote: TL> On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> In <199901030911.BAA21014@bitmover.com> Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com) wrote: >> >> > Such as? The only substantial chunk is gcc and that isn't part of the >> > operating system. >> >> Such as Libc. I'm NEVER seen ANY Linux distribution without some form of libc. >> ALL libc's for Linux are derived from GNU Libc (1 or 2)... For Linux >> developers libc is somewhat even more important then kernel. TL> (...) >> Libc, derived from GNU Libc (be it libc4, libc5 or glibc2) is >> inevitable in Linux world...
TL> Unless you want to use the Berkeley libc, which is unencumbered and perfectly TL> suitable for use under Linux.
Of course ! In this case this will be BSD/Linux, not GNU/Linux :-)
>> > Yeah, right. Have you actually tried this for any real application? >> > Sure, it's true for simple stuff but it is far from true for anything >> > real. >> >> Yes, there ARE differences between glibc-based Hurd and glibc-based Linux >> (thus GNU/Linux, not just GNU :-), but glibc-based Linux is close to >> glibc-based Hurd then to libc5-based Linux (from application developer >> viewpoint that is).
TL> With the slight exception that both Linuxes are useful systems.
Hurd is also useful system. Lack of cool installation program and hardware drivers do not make system useless ...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |