Wouter wrote regarding 'RE: [OT] OSS' on Tue, Dec 20 at 17:36:
> > Much like any radical, he has good ideas taken to a bad extreme.
> 
> Whatever else yoy think of Stallman, he has created the (original) GPL
> and GCC, which I bothy consider major landmarks in the software history.

The software's good.  The blind ideology and total inflexibility's bad.

> > Danny, who, in protest, refuses to call it "GNU/Linux"
> 
> You are right, it should be called [em]GNU[/em][small]linux[/small] :)

The systems work pretty much the same if I'm using busybox and uClibc
compiled with Intel's compilers.  The user interface and programs most
users interact with wouldn't be any different on one of the BSDs (I
used to use BSDi for what I do on Linux), on HPUX, etc.

Should it be GNU/FreeBSD just because they use gcc?  Should Sun be
pushing GNU/Solaris, since they ship with the gnu buildchain?  If not,
how much GNU software is required before some zealot wants to tack GNU
on to the *front* of the name of another sucessful project?  Is it the
use of GNU ifconfig and occasionally GNU ps which makes a GNU system
GNU?

I saw the smily, but the concept is still irritating.  Yeah, RMS is a
smart guy, and drove the development of some good stuff.  He's also a
conceited ass if he thinks he can stick his pet project's name in
front of any project's name as soon as that project gets sucessful,
just because it happened to use some of his stuff.  I can't think of
any other group who does that.  I'll call ps GNU/ps if he wants, and I
really prefer the GNU/top variant.  How about that? :)

--Danny
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist