Re: Version of autoreconf

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:46:34AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> You should always call GNU/Linux for GNU/Linux.  The operating system
> you are refering to is after all a variant of the GNU operating
> system.  By just saying that the operating system you are using is
> called "Linux", you are really "insulting" us, since we are the ones
> who wrote the operating system that you are using, not Linus et al.

Well, they did write the kernel part of Debian GNU/Linux. :-)  But I do agree,
calling is GNU/Linux instead of Linux is not for clarity.  In fact, calling it
GNU/Linux instead of GNU could be seen as "for clarity".  Calling is Linux
just wrong, as Linux is not the largest part of the system, and more
inportantly, it is not the reason that all the things work together as a
system.

> Hence the admonition. :-)
> 
>    [...] Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 contains a lot of information about
>    exactly what versions of the programs I am using.
> 
> It contains to much information, and you might have
> upgraded/downgraded various programs.  It is always simpler to note
> what version of a program you are using instead of what version the
> operating system you are using.

I disagree with you here.  While it's a good idea to mention the versions of
the programs you think are relevant to the problem, giving a bit more
information is always good.  There may be special things about it which you
don't know about.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature