Re: GNU/Linux Naming

[mike3]

On Dec 5, 1:55 pm, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@bytesexual.org> wrote:
> > Why not call it an "Aston Martin DB9/Ford VH", then? <giggle>
>
> Because the brand name will do, just like "Ubuntu" by it's self.
>

But you seemed to imply the more "technically correct"
name should be used.

> > It seems then there is an alternative (or not?) viewpoint here
>
> Not really, RMS doesn't claim it is for "getting credit" so I think
> you may be confused a little.
>

Then what's all this stuff about "getting credit" related to
_naming_? Yes, maybe I am confused. But then what
about this?:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

"When we ask people to say "GNU/Linux", we are not dividing people.
***We are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU
operating system.*** This does not criticize anyone or push anyone
away. "
(emphasis mine)

So why does credit have to be given through names?
That is what I am having trouble with.

> > So then why insist that the name used commonly _should_ be
> > GNU/Linux?
>
> One can but hope. :)
>
> > What about GNU/BSD where you run the GNU stuff with a
> > BSD kernel?
>
> That would work.
>
> > Also, what's the rub on "GNU/Hurd" when the Hurd kernel *is* GNU?
> > It should just be "GNU"!
>
> Yes, "GNU" would do just fine in that situation.
>
> > So then why not call the MacOS X a Darwin/XNU, then?
>
> You could. OS X is it's brand name, like "Ubuntu"
>
> > Is it also possible to make a Darwin/GNU system?
>
> Possibly, but I think you mean GNU/XNU. :)
>

Ah, OK.