Re: GNU/Linux Naming

[mike3]

On Dec 5, 8:01 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <r...@1407.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:46:00AM -0800, mike3 wrote:
> > I do not see the reason why "GNU/Linux" should be preferred over just
> > "Linux" to refer to the system.
>
> Hi, you can get *all* of Linux athttp://www.kernel.org/
>
> For a few examples of GNU/Linux, check Debian GNU/Linux, Red Hat Enterprise
> [GNU/]Linux, Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux, etc...
>
> > The arugment seems to be that the GNU
> > project, which contributed a great deal to the Free operating system
> > called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", should get credited for these
> > contributions in the name. There is nothing wrong with giving credit
> > -- in fact, it should be done. But in a NAME? Does this mean we have
> > to name movies, books, etc. even all computer software out there, in
> > such a way as to credit the creators and contributors? There are other
> > ways to do that, you know. I do not understand why *names* are the
> > appropriate place to give credit. What's the reason, anyway?
>
> Hi Toad, I guess I can call you Toad instead of Mike, after all, what is
> it about names that matters?
>

Well, I wouldn't like it, although it's funny, just because that is
not
the name that I have or use. "Linux" though, or "GNU/Linux", or
whatever, is just a collection of computer programs, it doesn't
"want" to be called anything, *it* doesn't prefer any name to any
other.

The thing I was referring to was specifically the idea of *names
giving credit*. The logic seems to be that the proper place for the
*credit* is in the *name*. That's what I do not get. Why can't one
just call it "Linux", and yet have the credit given for GNU somewhere
else? Is it because it emphasizes the "Linux" component, and
therefore could be thought of in some sense as explicitly
_denying_ the GNU contribution, while "GNU/Linux" emphasizes
both components? Why not some new name with no emphasis
on either?