Re: What OS is used By Richard Stallman

[mike3]

On Jan 16, 1:17 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 6:32 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > nicolas vigier <bo...@mars-attacks.org> writes:
> > > On 2008-01-03, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <r...@1407.org> wrote:
>
> > >> What he asks is for people to not call the whole operating system as
> > >> Linux, which is a common mistake as 99.999% of the time people are
> > >> talking about a GNU variant to which was added the Linux kernel.
>
> > > This not a mistake, this is just a name. And a name doesn't have to
> > > reflect all the things which are included inside it. Most people seems
> > > to like the "Linux distribution" name, everybody understands that it
> > > means the Linux kernel and many other things,
>
> > But those many other things are not arbitrary.  You dont' let yourself
> > be rechristened by your tailor, even though you are not fit for running
> > around naked, do you?
>
> > > and I see no reason to change that name to something else that is not
> > > as easy to say just because RPMS decides so.
>
> > Uh, GNU was there first.  So why should people decide to rename it when
> > it was done in the compass of a different project?  
>
> That's right, the majority component of the system is GNU.
> So then it seems only to make sense that GNU should be
> in the name.
>
> > Why is it ok to
> > bereave the GNU project of the credit for its work?  
>
> Credit can be given in other places beside _names_.
> The idea it must be given in the name and in no other
> place doesn't really make much sense.
>

Oof, that's not quite right. The idea is that it must
be given in the name, no other place is an acceptable
_substitute_ for giving it in the name (as if it was,
there's nothing wrong in terms of credit with calling
the system "Linux".).